Opinions on Abortion

[Thanatos34]

I have no objection to a woman doing what she feels she needs to do. Plain and simple.
Why do people get so upset about this topic?
Lets top it off further with the fact that, when they go through with the procedure they should have the option to donate it for stemcell research. Thats the sort of thing thats going to save us.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stem_cell_treatments

As just a few examples. Guaranteed that almost everyone knows someone who has been affected, or hell even lost someone as a result of one of the serious ailments that stem cells will be used to treat. /rant

But really, its a choice, whether between a couple deciding their not quite ready, or a young girl who was raped and impregnated.

There are plenty of adult stem cells that can do the same thing as fetus' stem cells, that you don't need to kill someone to get.

 

[Thanatos34]

One of the things I always find amusing is the "coat-hanger, back-alley abortion" story.

I mean, if someone who is against gay marriage makes an argument that it will only lead to further legalization of polygamy or bestiality or pederasty, etc., then he's making a stupid red herring/slippery slope/straw-man dipshit argument that will never happen and just confuses/avoids the issue.

But if someone thinks abortion should be illegal (based on whatever "sanctity of life" argument you choose), then immediately you get "OMG then pregnant women everywhere will die horrible bloody deaths by sticking rusty coathangers in their vag behind some dumpster! We can't let that happen!"

Is that really no less absurd of an argument?

Not really because in places where abortions are illegal, backstreet abortions happen, and they're not pleasant. In places where gay marriage is illegal people dont randomly start being polygamous or comitting bestiality.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/crossing_continents/6230647.stm

This is a stupid argument. I'm sorry, but really??

Let's make up this fantasy world. In this fantasy world, one can bring in one's older relatives to doctors and have them killed. Peacefully, without pain, (not like abortion at all, but for purposes of the argument-), they would just slip away. All arguments against this law are met with the following response:

"Well, we know that if we didn't have this law, people would still kill their old folks anyway, they just might do it in far more painful ways, like strangling them or poisoning them. This way, we can ensure that their passing is peaceful."

Is this the right answer? Hell no! The answer is to stop people killing their "old folks," in the first place!

I hope you can draw the parallel here.

 

[Thanatos34]

OK. Before anyone asks, yes, I used the search option. I found lots of threads that had mentions of abortion, some that presented or asked for information on abortion, but none that actually invited people to present their opinions on it. I've seen too many political topics lately that descend into discussions on abortion, among other things.

So...Here it is. Let's get to the heart of the issue. I want people to post what they think, where they stand, and, above all else, why. Please, don't attack people for their stance on the issue, just post your opinion and your reasons for believing what you believe.

Here I go:

I'm against abortion, I hate it. I know that in dire situations that demand that either the mother or the child dies, abortion is morally acceptable, because it's a choice between two lives. Abortion is a difficult choice in any circumstance, and until we ourselves are put into that kind of situation (an impossibility for me) we can't imagine the emotions it must create. As much as it pains me to say this, I will not support banning abortion in its entirety, because I have no right to make that choice for another person.

Consider me a hypocrite if you want, but I'm so conflicted on this issue that I can barely get my thoughts straight.

The embryo, until it develops a brain, is not a human being. Therefor a woman, the one who needs to carry the embryo who technically is a parasite for about 5 months or so, should have the right to decide if she wants to carry it or not.

It's her choice, not ours. Until the embryo "develops" a brain, the woman has a choice whether she wants to carry it or not.

The embryo develops a brain in three weeks, just fyi.

 

[Thanatos34]

On the whole though, I wish someone would step up to the plate and declare it legal or illegal and end the whole fucking controversy once and for all. I'll forfeit my preference just to have it decided on. If it's illegal, then it's illegal and you just have to deal. If it's legal, then protesters who continue with their BS should be arrested.

Legal in the UK up to 24 weeks if the woman's health (mental or physical) is deemed threatened by two Doctors. No time limit if their health is 'gravely' threatened.
Legal in Canada.
Legal in US...well, it's meant to be. Doesn't stop people protesting though ;/

Pro-choice here.

Now just waiting on that whole "and end the whole fucking controversy once and for all" part, plus the arresting of protesters.[/quote]

Oh yes, arresting protesters is a wonderful power to give the Federal government. That is a fundamental right of the citizen, to protest peaceably. If they aren't protesting peaceably, then arrest them. If they are, then you better keep your fucking hands off of them. (You, being the police and the government, in this case, not YOU, obviously.)

 

[Skeleon]

The embryo develops a brain in three weeks, just fyi.

Nope, 9th to 16th week, may differ from case to case.
Which is somewhere inbetween the first and the second trimester.
And that's why I'm okay with the (partly arbitrary, partly logical) limit of the first trimester.

Also, nobody aborts fetuses "willy-nilly", at least not in Germany.
It's legal to do up to the 12-14th week (with the aforementioned exceptions like rape or medical risks of course)
After a consultation by your gynecologist and/or certified consulting centers.
A woman must attend these consultations before deciding what to do with the fetus.
If she still wants to abort after hearing of the alternatives, she's free to do it.
That's how it is in Germany, I dunno how exactly it is in other countries. But I'd assume something similar.

And I think this is pretty much perfect:
First trimester, so the fetus isn't conscious yet.
After the first trimester in case of special circumstances is allowed.
Consultations to make sure, everybody is informed of alternatives, such as adoption.
Protects both the freedom of the woman (because it's ultimately her decision) but brings light to alternatives, improving the child's chances at survival (because of the consultations).

 

[ExodusinFlames]

There are plenty of adult stem cells that can do the same thing as fetus' stem cells, that you don't need to kill someone to get.

Its not a someone until it has a heart and a brain and is an organism that can survive, on its own, out of the womb. Until that point, its the equivalent of a parasite. And don't get me wrong, I love my god-daughters to death, but facts are facts.

Until there is a cost effective and non-threatening way of utilizing adult stem cells (ie, no chance for the artifical virus implanted into the cloned skin cells to cause cancer). Blastocysts (the structure formed in early fertilization, before implantation into the uterine wall) are a cluster of human cells that have not differentiated into distinct organ tissue; making cells of the inner cell mass no more "human" than a skin cell.

Adult stem cells exist as minor populations within a mature individual (ie, in every 1,000 cells of the bone marrow, only 1 will be a usable stem cell). Thus, embryonic stem cells are easier to isolate and grow than adult stem cells.

This begs the question though, Thanatos, are you a religious person? If so, how can you support something equally against your convictions (cloning to produce adult stem cells) over the chance at having something that could save billions of lives in the future? And if not, then what moral implication pushes towards again billions being saved, diseases being cured at the cost of something that isn't human yet?

 

[Alex_P]

I'm not even beginning to see your side of the argument here, and it's really not helping me understand you.

Fundamentally, moral systems deal in the interactions of conscious beings. Folks in this thread have been using "human" to refer to those beings; for clarity, I'm going to use "person" instead.

Modern culture's still working on how we treat non-human life that still possesses a more limited form of awareness, emotion, cognition. The traditional model is absolute non-personhood. Modern radicals occasionally suggest absolute personhood, but that position is untenable (see below). The idea that, in addition to the personhood of real, living beings, there are degrees of personhood (and therefore, yes, of moral importance) that apply to other life, is slowly taking shape. (There's a kind of elephant-in-the-room tangent here that I'll address later.)

You can't completely change how a person acts just by creating a handful of new moral ideals. A large part of any moral philosophy that has practical value is really a set of rationalizations -- we're formalizing our emotional thinking. This has value because we can then take the formalizations and apply them to situations that are too complicated or too alien for our instinctual, emotional, subconscious reactions.

I threw in those last two paragraphs because, simply put, all life can't be equally magically sacred. We kill stuff all the time. It's just how we work as biological beings. Even if you think that's universally bad, you have to actually recognize moral degrees there; otherwise you're paralyzed by a value system that values all actions the same.

If it is going to become a human if we do not interfere, then at what point does it get human rights? When it is outside of the mother's body? Is that what you are saying here?

Morally speaking, it acquires personhood gradually. There shouldn't be an arbitrary line. Not fertilization, not implantation, not second trimester, not birth. Because of how humans develop, killing a third-trimester fetus means more than killing a two-week-old embryo.

To work this into a modern legal system, you have to distill the fuzzy moral spectrum into specifically-delimited legal categories. Legal systems don't have to match moral systems perfectly; I think effective ones shouldn't -- they should allow some flexibility for people to act within the parameters of their individual moral ideals, as long as those moral ideals are at least someone in tune with those of the
society as a whole.

So, here's some arbitrary categories just for the sake of example...
Given that a first-trimester child is definitively less conscious than the pig I had for dinner today, I see no reason for a woman to be legally prohibited from killing it for pure family-planning reasons (what some people in this thread are calling "willy-nilly" or "escaping the consequences").
Given that a second-trimester child is, at most, not much more conscious than that pig, I think killing it is a bigger deal than killing the example first-trimester child, but I think there's no question it should be legally permissible. And my lifetime of pig-eating is quickly adding up to more of a moral transgression than a one-time abortion.
Given that a third-trimester child is getting much closer to a full-on infant, I think killing it is a big deal morally. Legally, though? In theory, it could go either way and I wouldn't complain: this is a fuzzy edge, so I don't think where we draw the necessarily-kinda-arbitrary line really matters as long as it's vaguely within the right spot.
In practice, I'm in favor of laws that permit late-term abortions for non-critical reasons because I think that the threat of people using those laws against women who need a late-term abortion is far greater than the threat of people getting unnecessary late-term abortions -- women who get abortions for family-planning reasons rather than out of medical necessity aren't going to spend months carrying the child beforehand.

This idea of interference is irrelevant. We "interfered" to make the zygote in the first place. We don't owe that one imaginary person anything. We can take its probable future into account, but, when we kill it, we're killing the thing it is now, not the thing it might become later.

Also, are you saying that if something cannot perceive and interact with it's environment, we should be able to kill it? There are humans with disabilities that cannot do this, should we just knock them off, too?

These concerns come up a lot in the philosophy of artificial intelligence. Albert Einstein's mind magicked into a rock isn't an intelligent entity.

In a practical sense, any person that meets your criteria absolutely is braindead anyway. It's irrelevant. We keep coma patients alive because their condition might reverse itself; for people we know to be actually braindead, the so-called "right to life" issue is really a matter of social ritual rather than actual moral significance -- it's just a slightly more visceral version of the question "How should we dispose of our dead?"

I agree that it's right to life should not make an actual human suffer grievous harm, but if the human is not going to suffer grievous harm, then the fetus should be allowed to live. We have come up with this idea that abortion is a right, (as you put it, a body-right), and that this somehow supersedes the right to life, which is guaranteed in the US constitution, in any case.

My cat's more alive and cognizant than the vast majority of fetuses at the time of their abortion, and my cat has absolutely no legal rights.

The US Constitution deals with "we the people," not "we the potential-people". Its preamble stresses "justice", "the general welfare", and "liberty" as the essential concerns of America's highest laws. "Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" is a phrase from the Declaration of Independence, which sets up some foundational ideals but isn't actually the document that established our government.

By the way, the fetus' brain begins its development, (as the brain is, really, developing all through life), a mere three weeks after conception. So is this the point where you would assign rights to the fetus?

That's the point I would start to assign serious moral weight to actions taken against the fetus. However, it takes much longer for it to develop, say, a brain with faculties similar to my cat's. And, as I said above, I eat things that used to have brains all the time. I don't think it's morally good but I'm not freaking out about it, either.

-- Alex

 

[H.R.Shovenstuff]

Pro-choice here
I don't see how anyone else can dictate to a woman what she can and can't do with her own body. And that group of cells in her womb is not a child.

Yes it is. Once the egg and sperm cell unite there is a genetic uniqueness that will develop under optimal condition to a child. We are now smart enough to know that life doesn't begin in birth but when a new genetic being is created. That small cluster of cells already has a different DNA then that of the mother. Abortion is murder, simple.

However, that does not mean a stance for pro-life. For example, self defense permits murder, in a case where the pregnancy is endangering the life of the mother it is in her self-defense to abort the child.

1. Don't play the 'We're all smart here so we know life doesn't begin at birth. We're friends' card.
2. As soon as the sperm fertilizes the egg? I don't think so Tim. All you have there is the potential for a child, not a child. It only becomes a human being after a few months. If you use the argument that as soon as the egg is fertilized there is a child you can take that and use reductio ad absurdum to come to the logical conclusion that every sperm is a child and therefore you are in a monty python situation.

 

[Bluebacon]

One of the things I always find amusing is the "coat-hanger, back-alley abortion" story.

I mean, if someone who is against gay marriage makes an argument that it will only lead to further legalization of polygamy or bestiality or pederasty, etc., then he's making a stupid red herring/slippery slope/straw-man dipshit argument that will never happen and just confuses/avoids the issue.

But if someone thinks abortion should be illegal (based on whatever "sanctity of life" argument you choose), then immediately you get "OMG then pregnant women everywhere will die horrible bloody deaths by sticking rusty coathangers in their vag behind some dumpster! We can't let that happen!"

Is that really no less absurd of an argument?

Not really because in places where abortions are illegal, backstreet abortions happen, and they're not pleasant. In places where gay marriage is illegal people dont randomly start being polygamous or comitting bestiality.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/crossing_continents/6230647.stm

This is a stupid argument. I'm sorry, but really??

Let's make up this fantasy world. In this fantasy world, one can bring in one's older relatives to doctors and have them killed. Peacefully, without pain, (not like abortion at all, but for purposes of the argument-), they would just slip away. All arguments against this law are met with the following response:

"Well, we know that if we didn't have this law, people would still kill their old folks anyway, they just might do it in far more painful ways, like strangling them or poisoning them. This way, we can ensure that their passing is peaceful."

Is this the right answer? Hell no! The answer is to stop people killing their "old folks," in the first place!

I hope you can draw the parallel here.

I'm afraid I cant draw the parallel. Firstly if you'd follow the link you'd see backstreet abortions dont occur in a fantasy world, in fact they are very common in places where abortion is illegal and they often go wrong and leave the patient in permanent crippling pain, if they dont kill her.
Secondly, no one is suggesting killing old people, and no one would (unless your refering to the euthanasia debate, which is a different debate entirely). You're making two totally different comparisons: removal of a lump of cells that isnt even human yet vs killing someone with a past, with family and with responsibilities. They just dont compare.

 

[asiepshtain]

Pro-choice here
I don't see how anyone else can dictate to a woman what she can and can't do with her own body. And that group of cells in her womb is not a child.

Yes it is. Once the egg and sperm cell unite there is a genetic uniqueness that will develop under optimal condition to a child. We are now smart enough to know that life doesn't begin in birth but when a new genetic being is created. That small cluster of cells already has a different DNA then that of the mother. Abortion is murder, simple.

However, that does not mean a stance for pro-life. For example, self defense permits murder, in a case where the pregnancy is endangering the life of the mother it is in her self-defense to abort the child.

1. Don't play the 'We're all smart here so we know life doesn't begin at birth. We're friends' card.
2. As soon as the sperm fertilizes the egg? I don't think so Tim. All you have there is the potential for a child, not a child. It only becomes a human being after a few months. If you use the argument that as soon as the egg is fertilized there is a child you can take that and use reductio ad absurdum to come to the logical conclusion that every sperm is a child and therefore you are in a monty python situation.

1. why not? it's true.

2.No, you're wrong. "reductio ad absurdum" works for the whole first - third trimester nonsense. It doesn't apply to what I said, the joining of the egg and sperm is a pivotal moment, before that you have nothing, two uncompleted genetic codes capable of nothing. Once joined, you get a complete, functional and unique human DNA. A new Human. It's a very clear line that can not be reduced. Sperm is nothing without an egg, and eggs are nothing without the sperm.

 

[Thanatos34]

One of the things I always find amusing is the "coat-hanger, back-alley abortion" story.

I mean, if someone who is against gay marriage makes an argument that it will only lead to further legalization of polygamy or bestiality or pederasty, etc., then he's making a stupid red herring/slippery slope/straw-man dipshit argument that will never happen and just confuses/avoids the issue.

But if someone thinks abortion should be illegal (based on whatever "sanctity of life" argument you choose), then immediately you get "OMG then pregnant women everywhere will die horrible bloody deaths by sticking rusty coathangers in their vag behind some dumpster! We can't let that happen!"

Is that really no less absurd of an argument?

Not really because in places where abortions are illegal, backstreet abortions happen, and they're not pleasant. In places where gay marriage is illegal people dont randomly start being polygamous or comitting bestiality.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/crossing_continents/6230647.stm

This is a stupid argument. I'm sorry, but really??

Let's make up this fantasy world. In this fantasy world, one can bring in one's older relatives to doctors and have them killed. Peacefully, without pain, (not like abortion at all, but for purposes of the argument-), they would just slip away. All arguments against this law are met with the following response:

"Well, we know that if we didn't have this law, people would still kill their old folks anyway, they just might do it in far more painful ways, like strangling them or poisoning them. This way, we can ensure that their passing is peaceful."

Is this the right answer? Hell no! The answer is to stop people killing their "old folks," in the first place!

I hope you can draw the parallel here.

I'm afraid I cant draw the parallel. Firstly if you'd follow the link you'd see backstreet abortions dont occur in a fantasy world, in fact they are very common in places where abortion is illegal and they often go wrong and leave the patient in permanent crippling pain, if they dont kill her.
Secondly, no one is suggesting killing old people, and no one would (unless your refering to the euthanasia debate, which is a different debate entirely). You're making two totally different comparisons: removal of a lump of cells that isnt even human yet vs killing someone with a past, with family and with responsibilities. They just dont compare.

...

The point is not about euthanasia at all, it's about the ridiculous argument that is being used to support abortion. The person performing a manual abortion is acting stupid. Laws should not be made to protect the lowest common denominator. If that is the only argument for abortion, then it can easily be tossed aside in favor of actual logic, and a quick calculation of risk vs gain.

You need to err on the side of caution. Unless you can prove beyond reasonable doubt that the fetus is not human, then you should not be able to abort it. Risk vs gain. People keep calling a fetus "a lump of cells." Guess what? We are a lump of cells, too! The fetus begins to resemble a human infant in a very short time indeed, and many pro-choice advocates suggest that we arbitrarily assign a date where they can be called human, despite no scientific assurances that they are not human before this arbitrary date. A fetus may not be a human at a certain point in its development, but there is no scientific way to know when exactly it does happen. Thus, you assume it is human unless it is proven that it is something else.

 

[Thanatos34]

The embryo develops a brain in three weeks, just fyi.

Nope, 9th to 16th week, may differ from case to case.
Which is somewhere inbetween the first and the second trimester.
And that's why I'm okay with the (partly arbitrary, partly logical) limit of the first trimester.

Also, nobody aborts fetuses "willy-nilly", at least not in Germany.
It's legal to do up to the 12-14th week (with the aforementioned exceptions like rape or medical risks of course)
After a consultation by your gynecologist and/or certified consulting centers.
A woman must attend these consultations before deciding what to do with the fetus.
If she still wants to abort after hearing of the alternatives, she's free to do it.
That's how it is in Germany, I dunno how exactly it is in other countries. But I'd assume something similar.

And I think this is pretty much perfect:
First trimester, so the fetus isn't conscious yet.
After the first trimester in case of special circumstances is allowed.
Consultations to make sure, everybody is informed of alternatives, such as adoption.
Protects both the freedom of the woman (because it's ultimately her decision) but brings light to alternatives, improving the child's chances at survival (because of the consultations).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embryo

Week 1-3: 5-7 days after fertilization, the blastula attaches to the wall of the uterus (endometrium). When it comes into contact with the endometrium it performs implantation. Implantation connections between the mother and the embryo will begin to form, including the umbilical cord. The embryo's growth centers around an axis, which will become the spine and spinal cord. The brain, spinal cord, heart, and gastrointestinal tract begin to form.[2]

Week 4-5: Chemicals produced by the embryo stop the woman's menstrual cycle. Neurogenesis is underway, showing brain activity at about the 6th week.[3] "The heart will begin to beat around the same time. Limb buds appear where the arms and legs will grow later. Organogenesis begins. The head represents about one half of the embryo's axial length, and more than half of the embryo's mass. The brain develops into five areas. Tissue formation occurs that develops into the vertebra and some other bones. The heart starts to beat and blood starts to flow.[2]

The brain may not be completely developed until later, but it begins development at the 3rd week of fertilization. The human brain undergoes development through our entire life, so who are you to arbitrarily say that the brain a fetus has around the 4th week of development doesn't qualify as a "real" brain? By the sixth week, at the very latest, activity from the brain is shown in Neurogenesis, so it is active. So, at the very latest, if you are going to use the human brain, the sixth week should be cutting-off point for an abortion to be performed.

 

[Thanatos34]

There are plenty of adult stem cells that can do the same thing as fetus' stem cells, that you don't need to kill someone to get.

Its not a someone until it has a heart and a brain and is an organism that can survive, on its own, out of the womb. Until that point, its the equivalent of a parasite. And don't get me wrong, I love my god-daughters to death, but facts are facts.

Until there is a cost effective and non-threatening way of utilizing adult stem cells (ie, no chance for the artifical virus implanted into the cloned skin cells to cause cancer). Blastocysts (the structure formed in early fertilization, before implantation into the uterine wall) are a cluster of human cells that have not differentiated into distinct organ tissue; making cells of the inner cell mass no more "human" than a skin cell.

Adult stem cells exist as minor populations within a mature individual (ie, in every 1,000 cells of the bone marrow, only 1 will be a usable stem cell). Thus, embryonic stem cells are easier to isolate and grow than adult stem cells.

This begs the question though, Thanatos, are you a religious person? If so, how can you support something equally against your convictions (cloning to produce adult stem cells) over the chance at having something that could save billions of lives in the future? And if not, then what moral implication pushes towards again billions being saved, diseases being cured at the cost of something that isn't human yet?

I'm not certain why you think that cloning would be used at all, nor why it would it go against my religious beliefs, if it were used.

Your definition of what makes a fetus a human would exclude anyone with a disability where they need help to survive, from being a human.

It is not okay to kill some to save others, and certainly not okay to give the government the power to do so. You start down that path, you will end up somewhere very ugly indeed.

 

[Skeleon]

*snip*

"Ab der 8./9. Schwangerschaftswoche wird für das ungeborene Kind der Begriff Fetus verwendet. Es bilden sich Nervenzellen im Gehirn."

"From the 8th/9th week onwards the term fetus is used for the unborn child. Nervous cells develop in the brain."

"9. - 16. Woche: Erste Bewegungen des Fetus, was auf Wahrnehmung von Umgebung und des eigenen Körper hindeutet. Die Bewegungen sind reflexartig, da noch keine Verbindung zum Gehirn besteht. Etwa bis zur 18. Woche entsteht ein zentrales Nervensystem, bei dem das Gehirn mit den meisten Teilen des Körpers verbunden ist."

"9th-16th week: Early movements of the fetus, which show perception of the environment and the fetus' own body. Movements are reflexive, since no connection to the brain exists yet. Circa up to the 18th week a central nervous system develops, when the Brain is connected to most parts of the body."

http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fetus

Intrigueing that the German wiki-version differs in that regard.
Perhaps the structure that is the brain begins forming in the third week (glia cells and the like) but no developed, operational nervous cells yet?
They'd probably still be mostly pluripotent cells at such an early stage.
If that's the case then yes, I'd find it perfectly okay to say the brain doesn't qualify as a "real" brain yet, 'cause it wouldn't serve the function of providing a consciousness.
I'd look it up in an embryology book but I don't have one available.

 

[Bluebacon]

One of the things I always find amusing is the "coat-hanger, back-alley abortion" story.

I mean, if someone who is against gay marriage makes an argument that it will only lead to further legalization of polygamy or bestiality or pederasty, etc., then he's making a stupid red herring/slippery slope/straw-man dipshit argument that will never happen and just confuses/avoids the issue.

But if someone thinks abortion should be illegal (based on whatever "sanctity of life" argument you choose), then immediately you get "OMG then pregnant women everywhere will die horrible bloody deaths by sticking rusty coathangers in their vag behind some dumpster! We can't let that happen!"

Is that really no less absurd of an argument?

Not really because in places where abortions are illegal, backstreet abortions happen, and they're not pleasant. In places where gay marriage is illegal people dont randomly start being polygamous or comitting bestiality.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/crossing_continents/6230647.stm

This is a stupid argument. I'm sorry, but really??

Let's make up this fantasy world. In this fantasy world, one can bring in one's older relatives to doctors and have them killed. Peacefully, without pain, (not like abortion at all, but for purposes of the argument-), they would just slip away. All arguments against this law are met with the following response:

"Well, we know that if we didn't have this law, people would still kill their old folks anyway, they just might do it in far more painful ways, like strangling them or poisoning them. This way, we can ensure that their passing is peaceful."

Is this the right answer? Hell no! The answer is to stop people killing their "old folks," in the first place!

I hope you can draw the parallel here.

I'm afraid I cant draw the parallel. Firstly if you'd follow the link you'd see backstreet abortions dont occur in a fantasy world, in fact they are very common in places where abortion is illegal and they often go wrong and leave the patient in permanent crippling pain, if they dont kill her.
Secondly, no one is suggesting killing old people, and no one would (unless your refering to the euthanasia debate, which is a different debate entirely). You're making two totally different comparisons: removal of a lump of cells that isnt even human yet vs killing someone with a past, with family and with responsibilities. They just dont compare.

...

The point is not about euthanasia at all, it's about the ridiculous argument that is being used to support abortion. The person performing a manual abortion is acting stupid. Laws should not be made to protect the lowest common denominator. If that is the only argument for abortion, then it can easily be tossed aside in favor of actual logic, and a quick calculation of risk vs gain.

You need to err on the side of caution. Unless you can prove beyond reasonable doubt that the fetus is not human, then you should not be able to abort it. Risk vs gain. People keep calling a fetus "a lump of cells." Guess what? We are a lump of cells, too! The fetus begins to resemble a human infant in a very short time indeed, and many pro-choice advocates suggest that we arbitrarily assign a date where they can be called human, despite no scientific assurances that they are not human before this arbitrary date. A fetus may not be a human at a certain point in its development, but there is no scientific way to know when exactly it does happen. Thus, you assume it is human unless it is proven that it is something else.

The fetus is in fact almost identical to that of a rabbit, a turtle or a horse until about 8 weeks, it even has gills. Infact, this aspect of embryology is used to support evolution, but thats an aside. While it is true that it might become a human, it also might not.

The cut off date for keeping a human embryo for research purposes is 14 days or after the appearance of the primitive streak, which is a structure that basically tells the embryo which direction should be heads or tails. Until that date, the embryo can split and identical siblings are formed, so its not a defined person, it could become any number of people, or if it fails to develop, none at all. So personally that's the ideal cut off date for an abortion in my opinion, though I appreciate life isnt so neat and it would be easy to not even know you were pregnant.

 

[Thanatos34]

*snip*

"Ab der 8./9. Schwangerschaftswoche wird für das ungeborene Kind der Begriff Fetus verwendet. Es bilden sich Nervenzellen im Gehirn."

"From the 8th/9th week onwards the term fetus is used for the unborn child. Nervous cells develop in the brain."

"9. - 16. Woche: Erste Bewegungen des Fetus, was auf Wahrnehmung von Umgebung und des eigenen Körper hindeutet. Die Bewegungen sind reflexartig, da noch keine Verbindung zum Gehirn besteht. Etwa bis zur 18. Woche entsteht ein zentrales Nervensystem, bei dem das Gehirn mit den meisten Teilen des Körpers verbunden ist."

"9th-16th week: Early movements of the fetus, which show perception of the environment and the fetus' own body. Movements are reflexive, since no connection to the brain exists yet. Circa up to the 18th week a central nervous system develops, when the Brain is connected to most parts of the body."

http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fetus

Intrigueing that the German wiki-version differs in that regard.
Perhaps the structure that is the brain begins forming in the third week (glia cells and the like) but no developed, operational nervous cells yet?
They'd probably still be mostly pluripotent cells at such an early stage.
If that's the case then yes, I'd find it perfectly okay to say the brain doesn't qualify as a "real" brain yet, 'cause it wouldn't serve the function of providing a consciousness.
I'd look it up in an embryology book but I don't have one available.

That is interesting. However, by the sixth week, the brain is functioning, as Neurogenesis is occurring. It may not be as developed as ours, but there are people with brains less developed than the average human's, it doesn't mean we can kill them because of that.

 

[Skeleon]

That is interesting. However, by the sixth week, the brain is functioning, as Neurogenesis is occurring. It may not be as developed as ours, but there are people with brains less developed than the average human's, it doesn't mean we can kill them because of that.

The main question for me is still whether or not such a 6th-week-brain actually produces a consciousness. As far as I know that's not the case.

Neurogenesis itself does not provide any information about that since only through interaction of nervous cells is any kind of rudimentary consciousness possible.
It'd be interesting to know when the actual networking of nervous cells takes place.

I checked my neuroanatomy and anatomy books but unfortunately they are very sparse on the topic and I don't own a book specifically on embryology.

 

[Alex_P]

That is interesting. However, by the sixth week, the brain is functioning, as Neurogenesis is occurring. It may not be as developed as ours, but there are people with brains less developed than the average human's, it doesn't mean we can kill them because of that.

Again: we kill things with brains all the time. Just to eat them.

-- Alex

 

[Thanatos34]

That is interesting. However, by the sixth week, the brain is functioning, as Neurogenesis is occurring. It may not be as developed as ours, but there are people with brains less developed than the average human's, it doesn't mean we can kill them because of that.

Again: we kill things with brains all the time. Just to eat them.

-- Alex

Nothing that is going to develop into a human.

 

[ExodusinFlames]

I'm not certain why you think that cloning would be used at all, nor why it would it go against my religious beliefs, if it were used.

In adult stem cell research, they clone the cells utilized at their most degenerated level, in order to replicate the stems. Its dangerous and not very cost effective. Is cloning not as against major religious doctrine as abortion?

Your definition of what makes a fetus a human would exclude anyone with a disability where they need help to survive, from being a human.

Not entirely. In most cases, folks with disabilities are able to think or act or have a heartbeat on their own. And those who aren't, don't deserve anything bad, before you jump on that wagon. But there is a wide difference between a developed human life (even if it is a person with a developmental disability) and something that is scientifically the same as skin cells.

It is not okay to kill some to save others

Really?
Adolf Hitler, were they planning to kill him to save others? Saddam Hussein as well? Or what about Bin Laden, if he is in fact still alive? I know its a completely different context, but the point to a certain extent remains valid.

At least in this equation there is potential for true greatness to come from a woman's right to choose for herself.