Yopaz said:
Razada said:
Yopaz said:
Razada said:
Yopaz said:
Silvianoshei said:
Reading this thread is amazing. A lot of people don't realize how much you change after having a child, If you are truly worried enough about the child's well being that you don't think you have the maturity to raise it, you'll surprise yourself at how much you grow up when you have one. If you liken a child to a parasite, then maybe you should hold off...
Believe me, there are too many out there who would not want an abortion who should never ever have kids. Some mature when it's required, but there are enough who don't.
Garyn Dakari said:
The "Thing" you speak of is a human life.
No, it's not. At the time where it's acceptable to have an abortion the nerves have yet to develop. Seriously, if you call this
a human life there is something seriously wrong with you. Especially since this is the foetus of a pig, which I am sure you did not gather from the image. An adult pig is a lot more developed than an early embryo, so by your definition we should not eat pigs because of how advanced they are. Even trees are more advanced than a foetus. There are a few requirements when we define life, and being able to find food is one of them. So by the ACTUAL definition a foetus can barely be called living at all.
*leaves all forms of religion at the door*
This is not about a cold hearted depiction of life. If humans were naturally psychopathic then yes, we could say this is about cold hearted depictions of life. But it is not. Human life is... Different (And if you disagree with me on that, this discussion is immediately done and your opinion is, in my eyes, invalidated) and by different I do not mean "Holy" or anything like that, I just mean that humans develop from embryos into, eventually, walking, talking, thinking people.
And that is the point that... Changes everything for me. Now at least, considering what I have already been through with regards to this topic. That little cluster of cells? If nature (Or science) does not get in its way will become a unique being. The chances of there being someone identical to him/her is, well impossible, both in genes and in who they will become. Now this is where the science gets blurred. The phrase "The whole is greater than the sum of its parts" does apply here. In reality? It is something beyond tiny that has no brain, no nervous system, no sense of self, it is a parasite. Hell, it takes a while for the little thing to be able to identify its parents AFTER is is born. But that little lump of cells is more than just... a little lump of cells. It is... Well, it is a hell of a lot of potential, but we cannot live our lives based on potential. Anyone will admit that it was the unique creation of two people and there will not be another bump of cells exactly like it ever again.
And that makes a difference.
Oh yes, you make arguments about "Complexity" but it depends on what levels you are grading complexity. In honesty that is a rather dead argument. Things are not just the sum of their parts.
Now, I am not against abortion per se, if the mothers life is at risk, for example, I am all for it. I just think that too many people think it is an easy choice (And everyone who thinks it is an easy choice is either naive or fucked up. Seriously, speaking from experience. I thought it would be an easy choice to make. I was naive) and too many people go through with it because they are scared of what it means and scared of having to change their lives. And in my eyes... Well, it feels like a bit of a punch to the groin. Which, as I have said, I feel bad about. But that is just how it feels.
tldr; blah blah blah, science is cold, it is not about the sum of its parts, it is about the whole and what it represents, oh god I overuse ellipsis whilst writing down my thoughts.
You call it cold hearted, I call it rational. I am using this way of discussing this because it's the best way to oppose a warm hearted idealism. We can be pro-choice and still be warm hearted. I think of the people involved. A kid brought into life unwanted may cause suffering to the parents and in turn for the kid itself. I see that as a lot worse than being denied life before there even is talk of life. Calling a lump of cells where the only thing that has been establishes is the axises of a deuterestromic embryonic development is warm hearted. There is little difference between what we see in other mammals, in the first 2 weeks you wouldn't see the difference between a frog and a human.
You say there are a lot of different ways to look at complexity, sure. Let's take a look at some.
An adult pig can feel pain. A human Foetus can't
An Adult pig can think. A human Foetus cant.
An Adult pig can move freely and live on its own. A human foetus can't.
An Adult pig got all nerves and organs. A human Foetus don't.
An adult pig has developed it's gender. A human foetus will have to wait for the SRY gene to activate to determine gender.
A human foetus got the 3 axises determined which determines the orientation of the new development and differentiation on a cellular level. Guess what, a pig has already been through that. On all gradings of complexity a foetus is less than our food.
You accuse me of being cold hearted, but that's not true. I want kids, but I know the truth of this. Human life isn't sacred. We value it more because we are attached to it, we can relate to it. We romanticize it, make it poetic. It's the miracle of life. However it's nothing special. I know there's a few who regret their abortions afterwards, just like there's a ton who regret having kids altogether. We do things we regret, but the choice should still be up to us. There is something in the saying that we can't learn from the mistakes of others. Am I cold hearted for believing we should control our lives?
No, but grading the life of a being that will eventually become sentient is cold hearted. Grading life as a whole is.
Look, I am going to have to back out of this.
I went through hell, this is a very... Personal debate. Heh, I always get drawn into abortion/parenthood/rape/daterape/mentalhealth threads and I usually back out of them for the same reasons. Too close to home.
In levels of biological complexity you are correct. But that argument leads me to the assumption that you believe biological complexity is what matters more. That is why I said it is a dead end argument. And again.
It is more than the sum of its parts. That is the bit that is important. You have to hold both views in mind, both its potential and what it really is. You cannot ignore the potential. If you do not hold what it will become to account, no doctor would ever allow someone to go through pregnancy. A parasite, consuming your food and changing your body that can potentially kill you? But that is what it is.
The logical conclusion of the biological complexity argument is for humanity to be sterilized to prevent parasites from entering females and for humanity to live entirely on vegetables for the 80 or so years it takes for us to finally die out. Which is why I say the biological complexity argument is a pointless side to the entire debate, in some ways it is the entire debate and in others it has nothing to do with the debate. Sure, it has been made many, many times by people who are pro choice. And, I would like to restate this, I am pro choice and I see the merits of the argument. But... There is a lot more to this then just how complex the creature is and boiling it down to cold, logical science alone is, in my eyes, a defence issue.
Not because people think they are murdering children, they are not. But because it is a scary prospect. I have been there, I have stood on the cliff edge, I know what it looks like from the inside. The science scares people. Humanity has advanced to the point where we can detect and end the life of humans before it even begins. The potential scares people. There is a small part, however minute, that whispers the potentials of that group of cells into your ear.
But by concentrating on the cold science, by distancing yourself behind an argument which is both bulletproof and unrelated, you defend yourself from the realities of the action.
Abortion is neither right nor wrong. Each and every case is subjective and where possible should be a decision made by both of the people involved. But the biological argument alone, without the moral questions, is... Not enough.
I will not pry into your personal life, I am trying to avoid doing so, but if you feel I am getting to close, ignore that and call me an asshole. I do have problems restraining myself when I get worked up and I will apologize in advance in the case I should push it too far.
I am grading life on what is, not what will be. We don't understand animals, but they do at times understand us more than we're comfortable with. So saying that animals aren't sentient is pure ignorance. Humans are still worth more in our eyes. If I had a dog and it had a disease that would kill it with no hope of survival, then I would most likely decide to put it down as soon as it got too much pain to be able to enjoy being alive. This actually happened, so know it to be true. If my mom had or any of my loved ones had a disease that would kill them I would want whoever that was to live as long as possible. I too am guilty of putting a human life higher than that of any other.
I have never said that a foetus never will become a human being. I started this discussion with the statement that a foetus isn't a human being. A foetus could be described as a parasite by using a vague description, but I think that is inaccurate. It's a part of a reproductive cycle which is fairly successful because it offers protection to the developing life. I will never call a foetus a parasite, because I know too much biology for that. I'm not saying that we should not eat meat because of its biological complexity. I am saying that if you are pro-life and say it's because abortion should be banned because we're killing humans, then you shouldn't be fine with eating thinking feeling pigs.
I can debate this without going into the cold hearted science and rather go into psychology and social anthropology too. This is one of the points where I might be touching a bit close to home, so feel free to skip this.
A kid brought into a world unwanted may end up having great parents and live a great life, bringing joy to the parents and to the world around him or her. It could also be brought into a life of abuse and suffering. Always being accused of ruining the family, always feeling like no-one cares about him or her. Some survive this, some get stronger, some get broken and the worst part is that some grow up to become abusive parents and get new kids that will suffer what they had to suffer. I would want to see a world without child abuse, but knowing this is unrealistic I would settle for seeing less kids born into families where this could be a problem.
Both you and I believe that humans are a lot of things, that we are made of many things. One of those things that make us human is our ability to choose, our desire to choose. We do our choices, good or bad, regret or not. Taking away our choice because others have a problem with it would be to take away a small part of our humanity. Call me cold hearted if you wish, but I do value human life, which means I value more than the start of it. I will also thank you for actually making an effort to get your points across, you have made this an interesting discussion rather than most of what you come across while discussion abortion. You are right that biological knowledge isn't enough, but that is how this discussion started in this case. If someone who's pro-life starts rambling on about how we are killing tiny humans, then I will protest that because that is in every way a lie. If someone who's pro-life starts discussing morals I will discuss the morals and the ethics and the hypothetical scenarios around it. I believe that we should choose ourselves, but it shouldn't be easy to choose that for anyone.
And for someone who is on the fence?
Well, we are keeping this rational and calm. In short, someone I used to love had a miscarriage once and it tempered my opinion of the entire debate massively since.
Both sides of the argument are fair. They both have equal merits.
We are both in agreement that a group of cells is not a human and we are both in agreement that humans matter a lot to humans. Your depiction of the situation with your dog shows your understanding of this situation and that you are not simply trying to troll. My argument against the argument against humanity (Read that twice, it makes sense) is that the biodiversity argument is just as flawed as the "It is a human already" argument.
It is not a human already but it matter more than the sum of its parts. Both are facts. You cannot ignore the potential, it is... immoral to do so. I have nothing against abortion in the situations that truly call for it and in situations in which the parents have thought about the potential ramifications of what they are doing, it is not so simple as killing a group of cells.
The radicals on both sides use arguments which when considered should not be taken into account. It is not a human, it is a potential human. And it is not a simple group of cells, it is a potential human. It is that potential that makes the debate confusing. That potential is what drives this debate. If the moment conception occured, the group of cells had a sense of self and knew what was going on abortion would be banned in an instant. However, this is not the case and I remain unconvinced by the religious arguments.
But people on the other side of the debate need to remember the potential. Yes, it is just potential and in some ways it is just a group of cells, You shed thousands of cells every day, millions. You lose hair, you bite your nails, you are losing more cells then are contained in a fetus. The difference is that one of those hairs cannot grow into a son or a daughter.
The memory of losing one of those hairs does not have the potential to haunt you for the rest of your life and continue to bring tears to your eyes, no matter how RATIONAL you are, no matter how much you think "It is for the best, I was not prepared to be in that situation". God knows, I think that every day. I know I was not ready at the age of 18 to bring a child into this world and give it the life it deserves, I know that it was for the best that my fiance at the time had a miscarriage. I know this. But I do not know this. It is a state of conflict. I still think about all that potential.
Abortion is seen as such an easy debate, by both sides. But even the most rational of human beings, even the most cold among us (For I was once cold) can be brought down by this situation. There is not right answer. Abortion is neither right nor wrong.
And both sides consistently use the wrong arguments.
Much like you cannot argue a small group of cells is a human.
When you take everything into consideration, you cannot argue that it is not.
There is common ground to be found.
I am pro-choice and I hate the "Pro-life" debate for using the term "Pro-life" and indicating that people who advocate choice are advocating murder. It is not murder any more than biting your nails is murder. But people need to think more.
This debate has no right answer.
Abortion is neither good nor bad. Neither black nor white. It is not an open and shut issue and we need to admit that to ourselves. Of course, since each situation is unique, people should always have the option.
But, if the statistics I read in a booklet when one of my friends was getting an abortion are to be trusted, roughly one fifth of pregnancies in the United Kingdom end in abortion. I simply do not believe that one fifth of people who end up pregnant in this country are in situations that would mean raising a child without hope, a child without love and a child that will grow up to be unhappy.
One of my closest friends right now has two little boys. From two different fathers. She is single, both of the fathers love their children and pay child support. That sort of situation is what people use to justify abortion and I am glad that she didn't, it is tough for her but the children are happy and she is happy that she has her two little boys.
Only if both sides accept that the other has merits, only if both sides admit that they do not hold all the answers can a real debate happen. But I will only be happy as long as the debate remains theoretical, people should always have choice.
I just think that these days those choices are being made too hastily.
