The thread where we make enemies out of friends, aka the abortion debate thread — Page 18

darth_ender said:

Keep posting here, YubNub! You're winning me converts!!!!!!

Irony.

Nice picture!

Wow, this YubNubGuy referenced Carlin as if an authority figure while using wonky punctuation, I haven't heard a user do that since my overly angry,  pencil-penised, virgin, German speaking Asian friend got himself banned some time ago.

And yes, that IS an awesome picture!

Thanks.  I altered it from this one :)

I wanted something that better fit my George Lucas Paranoia Thread.

Sounds rather reasonable to me.

Mrebo said:

My conversational partner expressed (expected) shock, insisting that it is. I base my view on what I see in popular culture, the media, and politics.

 

...

 

I do imagine abortion is scary for many or most women, but if there is much of a moral concern, it is not well-represented in society.

I've been "close" with a few women who have shared with me that they have had abortions. Two in particular that I have really talked about it with. Neither of them told me until they got pretty close to me, and both seemed to hold it as a really difficult decision they made in their lives.

Having my appendix removed was scary. But it isn't something I reflect back on and consider years later and only admit to people after I feel comfortable with them. Even if they both came to the conclusion that they did the right thing, it was still clearly a moral concern to them and weight on them. Seems to me the women I have known who are more flippant supporters of abortion, are also ones who happen to have never been pregnant before.

I have no real point of my own to make here. Just felt this personal experience of mine related to what you were saying.

My sister bitterly regretted having to abort ectopic twins but she was more traumatised by the death of her son who lived a full day after being delivered to term with only half a heart.

Not only because she bonded with the boy during his very short and distressed life but also because she was sterilised as it was her third necessary caesarian section.

If the defect could have been detected early the pregnancy could have been aborted and she could have had a son with a viable chance of life. Instead of a day of life suffering. 

I appreciate the personal stories, as they show that the waters are not as crystal clear as one would hope (at least, I see why it's not clear to others). And I really am sorry for your sister, Bingo. But to me, the value of a human life does not depend on how much someone has bonded with it. That value is innate, in my opinion. People often treat mammals much more kindly than they do to reptiles. I suppose this is because we can better detect the emotions in mammals, can relate more closely to their nature, and maybe even their appearance. But I, and I imagine you Bingo, are deeply hurt when someone mistreats a reptile or an amphibian. I remember when I was young, I found a horned toad. I showed it to a friend of mine, who started picking it up and throwing it around. I don't believe he had thrown it hard enough or from high enough to do any serious damage, but I was horrified, and when he wasn't looking, I took it and hid it where he couldn't find it. I felt that its value didn't depend on how much my friend had grown attached to it. It was a living creature that deserved further life.

I may sound like a hypocrite as I much on my pasta with meat sauce, but I favor the humane treatment of animals, even if they are to be killed. But a human life, even an undeveloped one, is even infinitely more valuable than an animal to me.

Again, thank you for sharing your story. I mean that genuinely.

A bunch of cells that may lead to a baby with half a heart is not the same as a baby with half a heart.

That's the point.

My vegetarianism has limits which are very difficult to justify.

I don't eat prawns for example.

Not because I have a personal feeling or scientific evidence which suggests that prawns can suffer in the same way that a cow can or a human but because I have to draw a line somewhere and it's just easier to draw it not eating animal flesh.

Some plants demonstrate a more obvious response to their environment than some prawns.

A prawn in the wild is probably more capable or at least as capable of suffering as a human embryo of the same size.

A fully grown human baby is a different matter, arguably an adult has more capacity for suffering than a child (because it can perceive a position where it wouldn't be in pain more than a child).

I would sacrifice the prawn-like life of an undeveloped fetus to prevent a fully grown baby suffering the futile pain and suffering of trying to live on half a heart for under 24 hours.

I would certainly have less compunction extinguishing that life to allow another fully formed human to live and thrive for more than 24 hours.

Such an act sparing the suffering of someone I know having a dead baby representing the last chance she has at having a son prised out of her arms is a bonus in my view.

It depends on if you see the personality as pre-packaged or an emergent property.

If it's pre-packed every sperm and ovum are indeed sacred and every ejaculation is a disaster with only one possible survivor.

If it's an emergent property, attaching more value to even a developed human fetus than any other animal is a to some degree just sentimental.

Most people are somewhere in the middle.

Understanding your story differently now, I realize I should have responded somewhat differently. If I had the time for a fuller response now, I would grant it. It must come later. I'll get back to you.

Bingowings said:

If the defect could have been detected early the pregnancy could have been aborted and she could have had a son with a viable chance of life. Instead of a day of life suffering. 

wait, I don't get it, just how would having an abortion have prevented the son dying from only having a half a heart?  

Bingowings said:

If it's pre-packed every sperm and ovum are indeed sacred

nope, its only sacred when the sperm and ovum have combined to make an embryo.

Bingowings said:

 

If it's an emergent property, attaching more value to even a developed human fetus than any other animal is a to some degree just sentimental.

sorry, not getting how attaching more value to a developed human fetus than to some other animal is just sentimental. 

Warbler said:

Bingowings said:

If the defect could have been detected early the pregnancy could have been aborted and she could have had a son with a viable chance of life. Instead of a day of life suffering. 

wait, I don't get it, just how would having an abortion have prevented the son dying from only having a half a heart?  

Let me help you with that.

I didn't say it would have helped that child.

I said she could have had a son with a viable chance of life instead of a day of life suffering.

A different son because she hadn't carried the other son to full term for his one day of pain and hadn't had to be sterilised because of her third Caesarian section.

If the defect had been detected before he had developed neurologically enough to feel pain the child my sister did have wouldn't have had to have suffered trying to live the duration of his short life with half a heart and having tubes poking out of every part of his body.

Warbler said: nope, its only sacred when the sperm and ovum have combined to make an embryo.

Whatever you say, every sperm and ovum is potentially sacred then, it doesn't really change the point I was making.

Adolf Hitler was a fertilised ovum once. That's the problem with the process. you don't know what you will end up with.

Warbler said : sorry, not getting how attaching more value to a developed human fetus than to some other animal is just sentimental.

An animal that has been alive for a reasonably long time has a connection to it's, world, it's own life and to the lives of others of it's species.

If it is lucky it has connections to members of other species too.

It is aware of life and aware of pain and can conceptualise having either taken away.

It is capable of suffering in a way that is in advance of a human fetus which responds to the stimulation of pain but has no context to place that stimulation into.

The fetus can't imagine a situation without pain and struggle towards it.

It can not suffer.

Therefore any value we place on it (other than genetic investment if it is a family member) is based purely on it's likeness to us rather than any qualities it would have outside that of any other animal.

Which is the very definition of sentimentality.

It's why people want to protect Pandas over alien looking insects. 

Bingowings said:

Warbler said:

Bingowings said:

If the defect could have been detected early the pregnancy could have been aborted and she could have had a son with a viable chance of life. Instead of a day of life suffering. 

wait, I don't get it, just how would having an abortion have prevented the son dying from only having a half a heart?  

Let me help you with that.

I didn't say it would have helped that child.

I said she could have had a son with a viable chance of life instead of a day of life suffering.

A different son because she hadn't carried the other son to full term for his one day of pain and hadn't had to be sterilised because of her third Caesarian section.

If the defect had been detected before he had developed neurologically enough to feel pain the child my sister did have wouldn't have had to have suffered trying to live the duration of his short life with half a heart and having tubes poking out of every part of his body.

 

still not fully understanding,  why did having this child that only have half a heart, prevent her from having another child?

Bingowings said:

Warbler said: nope, its only sacred when the sperm and ovum have combined to make an embryo.

Whatever you say, every sperm and ovum is potentially sacred then,

big difference between potentially sacred and actually sacred. 

Bingowings said:

 

Adolf Hitler was a fertilised ovum once.

true, but one can not just assume that a certain fertilized ovum with turn into a hitler,  that fertilized ovum might be the next Gandhi.

Bingowings said:

Warbler said : sorry, not getting how attaching more value to a developed human fetus than to some other animal is just sentimental.

An animal that has been alive for a reasonably long time has a connection to it's, world, it's own life and to the lives of others of it's species.

If it is lucky it has connections to members of other species too.

It is aware of life and aware of pain and can conceptualise having either taken away.

It is capable of suffering in a way that is in advance of a human fetus which responds to the stimulation of pain but has no context to place that stimulation into.

The fetus can't imagine a situation without pain and struggle towards it.

It can not suffer.

Therefore any value we place on it (other than genetic investment if it is a family member) is based purely on it's likeness to us rather than any qualities it would have outside that of any other animal.

sorry but human  > animal, therefore a human fetus(which is a living developing human) is > animal.   Humans are sentient, animals are not.  It is not just sentimentality. 

Most animals humans notice are clearly more capable of sentience than embryos of any species.

It is sentimental to attribute personality to a wiggling bunch of cells with no awareness of the potential pain and pleasure of it's life and not to a pig or a cow or an octopus.

And I've lost count of the times I've mentioned my sister was sterilised after giving birth.

But *sigh* whatever. 

why was she sterilized?  

the wiggling cells may no awareness yet, but it is becoming a human.    

Holy shit, dude. Bingo has explained the whole thing in detail twice now. Why not just go back and read his first two posts on the subject if you're not getting it?

well I guess I don't too much about caesarian section.   I did not know that a woman had to be automatically sterilized after her third caesarian section.     That seems strange to me. 

The procedure is becoming less invasive but its still ultimately slicing someone across the fold of their middle and stitching them back up again.

To do it again you have to cut the scar tissue open and heal it up again.

There are only so many times you can do this.

Stands to reason really.

It was common practice to prevent further pregnancy after the third go (I'm not sure if it still is).

ok, now I get it.   If she had had an abortion instead of bringing the child to term and having a caesarian section,  she could have had another child after that.