Does Life Begin at Conception?
Replies
-
I find that surprising. Thanks for answering what I was wondering.
No problem, always happy to answer. My turn though: Can I ask why it's surprising that the appearance of the fetus has no effect on my mindset, when you yourself said the appearance of a 10-week old embryo would not change yours?0 -
No problem, always happy to answer. My turn though: Can I ask why it's surprising that the appearance of the fetus has no effect on my mindset, when you yourself said the appearance of a 10-week old embryo would not affect yours?
Well, I believe it's a life before it has the appearance of a baby. I would think the more it appears to be what a baby looks like at birth, might make pro-choice people take pause.0 -
Well, I believe it's a life before it has the appearance of a baby. I would think the more it appears to be what a baby looks like at birth, might make pro-choice people take pause.
Basing an argument off of when it starts to resemble a person isn't really sound. Until it is born, I feel that the fetus' rights are trumped by the mother's. Personally, I find it interesting that the "rights" of a fetus, sometimes down to a cluster of cells, seem to take priority over the rights of the mother.0 -
Much of this debate will enter the realm of 'moot' in the next few decades. Going back to 2001 (as published in the popular science of August 2005), work has been progressing pretty steadily on the so-called "artficial womb." I know that in the March 2011 Reproductive Science, they did a fairly comphrensive update on the issue, and the outlook is pretty good for at least a partial ex vivo uterus model. Frankly, viability will be less of an issue (as determined by the ability to live ex vivo, no woman needed), and in some cases it will be considered to be unlimited. In the most far fetched models, the uterus could be implanted in woman post hysterectomy, or in men if so desired. One of the big issues is that it may change the legal rights of fathers in determining abortion. I have read of some of the potential bioethic concerns, not the least limited to a group of wealthy persons not wanted to get stretch marks, but the process is fascinating. We already do so much extracorporeal work, and transplantation, it seems a natural next step.0
-
Much of this debate will enter the realm of 'moot' in the next few decades. Going back to 2001 (as published in the popular science of August 2005), work has been progressing pretty steadily on the so-called "artficial womb." I know that in the March 2011 Reproductive Science, they did a fairly comphrensive update on the issue, and the outlook is pretty good for at least a partial ex vivo uterus model. Frankly, viability will be less of an issue (as determined by the ability to live ex vivo, no woman needed), and in some cases it will be considered to be unlimited. In the most far fetched models, the uterus could be implanted in woman post hysterectomy, or in men if so desired. One of the big issues is that it may change the legal rights of fathers in determining abortion. I have read of some of the potential bioethic concerns, not the least limited to a group of wealthy persons not wanted to get stretch marks, but the process is fascinating. We already do so much extracorporeal work, and transplantation, it seems a natural next step.
I don't think that will make it a moot point. I think it will just make the issue even more divided. The same people who say "Well give it up for adoption" as if that were as simple as donating a sweater you haven't worn in 3 years, will then be saying "Well there's always the artificial womb." But, personally, if I found out I were pregnant I'd get an abortion immediately. I wouldn't want to have to go through the rest of my life wondering where that kid is and what they are doing.
Then there's the cost. Who is going to pick up the tab? My guess is that the pro fetus crowd will say that the parents should. I can't imagine that would be cheap. It would be a highly specialized and technologically advanced version of life support. I don't know anyone who could afford to pay for someone to be on life support out of their own pocket for the better part of a year (varying based on when it's removed from the mother.)
As for men having a say in abortion, I think they should in a way. If they want to keep it and the mother doesn't, the artificial womb might be a compromise but she should be allowed to sign away all rights and responsibilities if she so chooses. By the same token, if a woman wants to keep a baby and the man doesn't, I think that he should also be allowed to sign away all rights and responsibilities. He should have 3 months from the time he learns he's going to be/is a father to do so. If the woman chooses to keep it anyhow she knows before hand that she's going to be doing it alone. I do, however, think there should be a limit of say 5 times max that a man can do that. That way there won't be these guys out there with 20 kids with 20 different women none of whom they are supporting.0 -
I don't think that will make it a moot point. I think it will just make the issue even more divided. The same people who say "Well give it up for adoption" as if that were as simple as donating a sweater you haven't worn in 3 years, will then be saying "Well there's always the artificial womb." But, personally, if I found out I were pregnant I'd get an abortion immediately. I wouldn't want to have to go through the rest of my life wondering where that kid is and what they are doing.
Then there's the cost. Who is going to pick up the tab? My guess is that the pro fetus crowd will say that the parents should. I can't imagine that would be cheap. It would be a highly specialized and technologically advanced version of life support. I don't know anyone who could afford to pay for someone to be on life support out of their own pocket for the better part of a year (varying based on when it's removed from the mother.)
As for men having a say in abortion, I think they should in a way. If they want to keep it and the mother doesn't, the artificial womb might be a compromise but she should be allowed to sign away all rights and responsibilities if she so chooses. By the same token, if a woman wants to keep a baby and the man doesn't, I think that he should also be allowed to sign away all rights and responsibilities. He should have 3 months from the time he learns he's going to be/is a father to do so. If the woman chooses to keep it anyhow she knows before hand that she's going to be doing it alone. I do, however, think there should be a limit of say 5 times max that a man can do that. That way there won't be these guys out there with 20 kids with 20 different women none of whom they are supporting.
I certainly did not mean to imply that abortion would become a moot point. The artifical womb will be a bioethical, and budgetary, nightmare. I more meant to say that many of the currents points (such as viability, and the specficity of this as a womens rights issue) would be moot in the next wave of issues.0 -
So, kill your own child so you don't have to wonder what he or she is doing just because you got pregnant by mistake? Wouldn't want to burden yourself with that worry, huh?But, personally, if I found out I were pregnant I'd get an abortion immediately. I wouldn't want to have to go through the rest of my life wondering where that kid is and what they are doing.0 -
So, kill your own child so you don't have to wonder what he or she is doing just because you got pregnant by mistake? Wouldn't want to burden yourself with that worry, huh?But, personally, if I found out I were pregnant I'd get an abortion immediately. I wouldn't want to have to go through the rest of my life wondering where that kid is and what they are doing.
:rolleyes: No, I wouldn't "kill my own child". My kids are here. They are 14 and 11 and I'd die myself to save them without a moment hesitation. However, if I were to get pregnant again I would terminate ASAP. At that point it's not "killing my child" (really, the heavy emotional words only work against your cause) it's terminating an unwanted pregnancy. It's stopping the zygote/embryo from further developing. It's no more "killing my child" than stepping on acorns is "excavating a forest."
Yea, yea, I know you see it differently. You are welcome to your opinion. I will stick with mine.0 -
[quote[
:rolleyes: No, I wouldn't "kill my own child". My kids are here. They are 14 and 11 and I'd die myself to save them without a moment hesitation. However, if I were to get pregnant again I would terminate ASAP. At that point it's not "killing my child" (really, the heavy emotional words only work against your cause) it's terminating an unwanted pregnancy. It's stopping the zygote/embryo from further developing. It's no more "killing my child" than stepping on acorns is "excavating a forest."
Yea, yea, I know you see it differently. You are welcome to your opinion. I will stick with mine.
[/quote]
You really don't need to :roll eyes: when we don't agree. That just makes you seem like a teenage girl Facebook arguing with another teenager.
You're right, we do see it differently. I Robert the moment finding out I was pregnant and knowing I was carrying my child. That may seem dramatic to you, but that's how I feel about my pregnancies.0 -
You really don't need to :roll eyes: when we don't agree. That just makes you seem like a teenage girl Facebook arguing with another teenager.
:rolleyes: No, I wouldn't "kill my own child". My kids are here. They are 14 and 11 and I'd die myself to save them without a moment hesitation. However, if I were to get pregnant again I would terminate ASAP. At that point it's not "killing my child" (really, the heavy emotional words only work against your cause) it's terminating an unwanted pregnancy. It's stopping the zygote/embryo from further developing. It's no more "killing my child" than stepping on acorns is "excavating a forest."
Yea, yea, I know you see it differently. You are welcome to your opinion. I will stick with mine.
You're right, we do see it differently. I remember the moment finding out I was pregnant and knowing I was carrying my child. That may seem dramatic to you, but that's how I feel about my pregnancies.0 -
You really don't need to :roll eyes: when we don't agree. That just makes you seem like a teenage girl Facebook arguing with another teenager.
:rolleyes: No, I wouldn't "kill my own child". My kids are here. They are 14 and 11 and I'd die myself to save them without a moment hesitation. However, if I were to get pregnant again I would terminate ASAP. At that point it's not "killing my child" (really, the heavy emotional words only work against your cause) it's terminating an unwanted pregnancy. It's stopping the zygote/embryo from further developing. It's no more "killing my child" than stepping on acorns is "excavating a forest."
Yea, yea, I know you see it differently. You are welcome to your opinion. I will stick with mine.
You're right, we do see it differently. I remember the moment finding out I was pregnant and knowing I was carrying my child. That may seem dramatic to you, but that's how I feel about my pregnancies.
I felt that way with both of my pregnancies as well. that's because I saw them as the babies they would be, not as the literal blob of cells they were when I knew I was pregnant.
As for the :rolleyes: as I've said before, I run a debate site online at another site. :rolleyes doesn't mean you are a teenager (I haven't been a teenager since the '80s :laugh: ) it just means you are a bit exasperated with someone/something. In this case it's your over use of drama (which, incidentally, is also very teenager-ish.)0 -
Yes, you have mentioned a time or two or three that you run a debate site somewhere else. I suppose it is my experience with real life debates that makes the eye rolling immature. I didn't realize that because I view my pregnancies as viable babies makes me teenagerish.As for the :rolleyes: as I've said before, I run a debate site online at another site. :rolleyes doesn't mean you are a teenager (I haven't been a teenager since the '80s :laugh: ) it just means you are a bit exasperated with someone/something. In this case it's your over use of drama (which, incidentally, is also very teenager-ish.)0 -
Yes, you have mentioned a time or two or three that you run a debate site somewhere else. I suppose it is my experience with real life debates that makes the eye rolling immature. I didn't realize that because I view my pregnancies as viable babies makes me teenagerish.As for the :rolleyes: as I've said before, I run a debate site online at another site. :rolleyes doesn't mean you are a teenager (I haven't been a teenager since the '80s :laugh: ) it just means you are a bit exasperated with someone/something. In this case it's your over use of drama (which, incidentally, is also very teenager-ish.)
That's not at all what I said. I said your excessive drama "Kill your child" is the immature part. Not that you viewed your pregnancies as babies. I even said that I did just exactly that with my own pregnancies. Was I not clear on that part?0 -
So, kill your own child so you don't have to wonder what he or she is doing just because you got pregnant by mistake? Wouldn't want to burden yourself with that worry, huh?
If a woman aborts the pregnancy very early on, it's as much of a child as an acorn is a tree. It has the potential to become a child, but that's all.0 -
So, kill your own child so you don't have to wonder what he or she is doing just because you got pregnant by mistake? Wouldn't want to burden yourself with that worry, huh?
If a woman aborts the pregnancy very early on, it's as much of a child as an acorn is a tree. It has the potential to become a child, but that's all.
Unless I am mistaken, as soon as it sprouts and begins to take root, it is a seedling, no longer an acorn. That would be consistent with attachment to the wall of uterus. Unless, of course, you want the uterus to be the shell? At that point, we have to decide that it is a seedling at birth? And remains an acorn right up until the ninth month? But it sure looks like a tree, I mean human, by then. Maybe this analogy has certain limitations.0 -
Unless I am mistaken, as soon as it sprouts and begins to take root, it is a seedling, no longer an acorn. That would be consistent with attachment to the wall of uterus. Unless, of course, you want the uterus to be the shell? At that point, we have to decide that it is a seedling at birth? And remains an acorn right up until the ninth month? But it sure looks like a tree, I mean human, by then. Maybe this analogy has certain limitations.
Personally, I wouldn't wait until the third trimester to abort a pregnancy - I would abort it the moment I discovered that I was pregnant. To me, an unborn fetus is unborn be it in the first month or the ninth month, and therefore any "rights" it would have are trumped by the mother, who is an already living person.
Maybe I am slightly biased about this particular issue, though. I apologize if this is slightly off- topic, but eventually it loops back around, I promise haha. I've known for my entire life that I don't want children, so a child for me would never be "wanted" or "planned". I have been on birth control since I was 15, and take careful measures to ensure that conception will never, ever, ever occur. I've been looking into tubal ligation - getting my tubes tied - since I was 18 years old. The issue here is that most doctors (every one I've ever talked to) essentially laughs and tells you to come back after you're 30 (because, your silly emotional girl-brain might catch the baby rabies before then!). So at almost 23 years old, I am stuck with regular birth control pills, which as we know are highly effective, but not fail-proof. I am trying to be the responsible one here and prevent conception from happening, but no doctor will take my request seriously - and then if I were to get pregnant, there are people who would expect me to have the baby anyway, which just doesn't fly with me.
Being pro-choice, be it first-trimester or third-trimester, has nothing to do with whether I myself would have a third-trimester abortion (there's no way I would wait that long), but I don't have a right to tell another what she can or cannot do with her own body.0 -
Have you seen what a 10 week old embryo looks like? That doesn't change your mind does it?I am pro-choice, and while this opinion is not popular, I am okay with third trimester abortions.
Have you seen what a third trimester "non person" looks like?
I'm only in favor of 3rd trimester abortions in extreme circumstances such as serious medical issues for the mother or fetus.
Have you seen a thrid trimester abortion? I think anyone who would witness that would change their mind quickly. Pulling a baby out feet first, but leaving it's head inside and then injecting it with a lethal mixture isn't murder? Or even better, taking a breathing, crying, baby out of a mother and dumping it a bucket to let it die. Yeah, that's humane.0 -
I've heard women who have lost a baby during the 2nd trimester describe what they see, too. I just can't understand how some people can look at those little bodies and say they're not living and have no rights yet. Breaks my heart.0
-
Have you seen what a 10 week old embryo looks like? That doesn't change your mind does it?I am pro-choice, and while this opinion is not popular, I am okay with third trimester abortions.
Have you seen what a third trimester "non person" looks like?
I'm only in favor of 3rd trimester abortions in extreme circumstances such as serious medical issues for the mother or fetus.
Have you seen a thrid trimester abortion? I think anyone who would witness that would change their mind quickly. Pulling a baby out feet first, but leaving it's head inside and then injecting it with a lethal mixture isn't murder? Or even better, taking a breathing, crying, baby out of a mother and dumping it a bucket to let it die. Yeah, that's humane.
Have you ever seen a baby born with such a severe medical condition that it will never reach 1 month old? It will be in pain and suffering the entire time it is alive. It will never go home with its parents. I would never, ever put my child through that. You can post all the sensationalized descriptions of what happens during a 3rd trimester abortion you want but it doesn't change my mind a bit.0 -
So, kill it before it dies on its own? I don't think anyone here is trying to change your mind. We're debating, so expressing different opinions.Have you ever seen a baby born with such a severe medical condition that it will never reach 1 month old? It will be in pain and suffering the entire time it is alive. It will never go home with its parents. I would never, ever put my child through that. You can post all the sensationalized descriptions of what happens during a 3rd trimester abortion you want but it doesn't change my mind a bit.0 -
Yes. I consider it more of a euthanasia, which I am in favor of, than sitting back and watching my own child suffer while waiting for some supposedly loving God to take His own sweet time ending their misery. That, IMO, is cruel and selfish. You'd let your own child suffer needlessly for months on end just to spare yourself from making a tough decision.
So, kill it before it dies on its own? I don't think anyone here is trying to change your mind. We're debating, so expressing different opinions.Have you ever seen a baby born with such a severe medical condition that it will never reach 1 month old? It will be in pain and suffering the entire time it is alive. It will never go home with its parents. I would never, ever put my child through that. You can post all the sensationalized descriptions of what happens during a 3rd trimester abortion you want but it doesn't change my mind a bit.0 -
I would make sure the doctors were doing all they could to keep my child comfortable. What makes the decision cruel and selfish is the intention behind the actions. I could claim that it's cruel and selfish to kill your own child just because you don't want the burden of caring for it. I know people who have raised disabled, deformed children and they consider those kids a gift. It just depends on how you look at it.Yes. I consider it more of a euthanasia, which I am in favor of, than sitting back and watching my own child suffer while waiting for some supposedly loving God to take His own sweet time ending their misery. That, IMO, is cruel and selfish. You'd let your own child suffer needlessly for months on end just to spare yourself from making a tough decision.0 -
I would make sure the doctors were doing all they could to keep my child comfortable. What makes the decision cruel and selfish is the intention behind the actions. I could claim that it's cruel and selfish to kill your own child just because you don't want the burden of caring for it. I know people who have raised disabled, deformed children and they consider those kids a gift. It just depends on how you look at it.Yes. I consider it more of a euthanasia, which I am in favor of, than sitting back and watching my own child suffer while waiting for some supposedly loving God to take His own sweet time ending their misery. That, IMO, is cruel and selfish. You'd let your own child suffer needlessly for months on end just to spare yourself from making a tough decision.
I don't think that aborting a child that won't live past 1 month old to keep the child from suffering is comparable to a parent not wanting the 'burden' of caring for a disabled child. Not the same thing at all.0 -
I would make sure the doctors were doing all they could to keep my child comfortable. What makes the decision cruel and selfish is the intention behind the actions. I could claim that it's cruel and selfish to kill your own child just because you don't want the burden of caring for it. I know people who have raised disabled, deformed children and they consider those kids a gift. It just depends on how you look at it.
Honestly, I don't think it's fair to refer to it as "selfish". I give a lot of credit to parents of disabled children - a lot - because I know myself well enough to know that it's not something I could do. Maybe it is "selfish" to see it as a burden to sign onto the role of parenting a child who is going to have to be cared for like a child at 35 years old, but truthfully that goes beyond the traditional call of duty as a parent, and I don't think it's fair to expect everyone to be ready and willing to accept that kind of responsibility.
I'm glad that the people you know view their disabled, deformed children as gifts, and that's why I do give a lot of respect to those parents, but to many people, they would be a burden. To me, they would be a burden. Even to those who view those children as gifts, that's not to say that there isn't a fair amount of stress and struggle involved too. I would not be willing to give up my own life, dreams and goals to care for a disabled child until the day I died - I just wouldn't. It doesn't make me a good or bad person, just someone who knows my own limits. Just like you said, it depends on how you look at it.0 -
I would make sure the doctors were doing all they could to keep my child comfortable. What makes the decision cruel and selfish is the intention behind the actions. I could claim that it's cruel and selfish to kill your own child just because you don't want the burden of caring for it. I know people who have raised disabled, deformed children and they consider those kids a gift. It just depends on how you look at it.
Honestly, I don't think it's fair to refer to it as "selfish". I give a lot of credit to parents of disabled children - a lot - because I know myself well enough to know that it's not something I could do. Maybe it is "selfish" to see it as a burden to sign onto the role of parenting a child who is going to have to be cared for like a child at 35 years old, but truthfully that goes beyond the traditional call of duty as a parent, and I don't think it's fair to expect everyone to be ready and willing to accept that kind of responsibility.
I'm glad that the people you know view their disabled, deformed children as gifts, and that's why I do give a lot of respect to those parents, but to many people, they would be a burden. To me, they would be a burden. Even to those who view those children as gifts, that's not to say that there isn't a fair amount of stress and struggle involved too. I would not be willing to give up my own life, dreams and goals to care for a disabled child until the day I died - I just wouldn't. It doesn't make me a good or bad person, just someone who knows my own limits. Just like you said, it depends on how you look at it.
For me it goes even beyond that. I would not want to live like that so why would I intentionally put my kids in a situation like that? It's compassionate, not selfish.0 -
For me it goes even beyond that. I would not want to live like that so why would I intentionally put my kids in a situation like that? It's compassionate, not selfish.
But who are you to speak for how someone else would or wouldn't want to live their life?0 -
For me it goes even beyond that. I would not want to live like that so why would I intentionally put my kids in a situation like that? It's compassionate, not selfish.
But who are you to speak for how someone else would or wouldn't want to live their life?
Couldn't we ask the same thing of people who are against assisted suicide?0 -
If someone wants to end their own life, that's their business. I'd do my best to get them some help before it came to that. But, I don't think anyone has the right to assist someone in a suicide. It then becomes assisted homicide, IMO.Couldn't we ask the same thing of people who are against assisted suicide?0 -
But who are you to speak for how someone else would or wouldn't want to live their life?
That's the beauty of choice, though. If abortion isn't in line with someone's morals, then they shouldn't get one - but they also shouldn't make someone else live by their morals. Pro-choice doesn't necessarily mean pro-abortion - there are plenty of people out there who wouldn't get an abortion themselves, but respect a woman's right to choose. Just as I would never force a pro-life woman to abort a child who would be born with a disability or deformity, I wouldn't want someone else's morals to deny me power over my own body.0 -
Well, some people believe an unborn child has rights, too, one being the right to life. So, it isn't about taking away a woman's rights, but speaking up for those with no voice.That's the beauty of choice, though. If abortion isn't in line with someone's morals, then they shouldn't get one - but they also shouldn't make someone else live by their morals. Pro-choice doesn't necessarily mean pro-abortion - there are plenty of people out there who wouldn't get an abortion themselves, but respect a woman's right to choose. Just as I would never force a pro-life woman to abort a child who would be born with a disability or deformity, I wouldn't want someone else's morals to deny me power over my own body.
ETA: I do realize that pro-choice doesn't mean pro-abortion, and that many women who are pro-choice would never have an abortion themselves.0
This discussion has been closed.