Moderator: Forum Administrators
meidei wrote:Why is it half-blue and half-pink?
Do you have some kind of intersex agenda?
This thread suggests otherwise, a fetus is a human too (or not?)meidei wrote:I'm pretty sure everyone here is against infanticide, as it is a form of homocide.
So you need to look like one. When does one “become a human” anyway? Is it after developing into a fetus? Later (when)? Or ( ) at birth? I was taught it’s the moment of fertilisation, which to me is the most logical one.mōdgethanc wrote:http://37.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m59hnrYytc1qbpwkro1_1280.jpgto me, the kid starts being a kid, the moment the sperm enters the egg
That don't look like any kid I ever heard of!
Varislintu wrote:xivrox wrote:Yeah, there is one wrong. Murdering babies, i.e. other human beings. I will never understand how people can be so insensitive and heartless.
(I'm going to assume you mean embryos/fetuses.) That's fine as an opinion. You shouldn't ever have to have an abortion if you don't want to, and if it's against your moral principles. The really messy ethical issues arise if and when you want to take choice away from others. What happens if they refuse? In Ireland, the woman who refused to snap out of her suicidal mental state and carry her rapist's baby to term like a good little girl was pretty much completely stripped of all bodily autonomy. She was forcibly fed through a gastro-nasal tube. My personal opinion is that that is so far from sensitive, heartful, empathetic or life-celebrating that I cannot even comprehend it. Not even livestock should be treated like that.
If you want to take bodily autonomy away from women, you will face cases when a stern word is not enough to make them comply, and they will call your bluff. You may have to detain them, strap them to beds and force feed them for weeks or months, and then deliver an unwanted, probably premature baby. Is that really right in your opinion? Do you really feel that when you yourself were 8 weeks in development in the womb, that something like that could morally have been done to your mother, just to ensure you came to be?
xivrox wrote:This thread suggests otherwise, a fetus is a human too (or not?)meidei wrote:I'm pretty sure everyone here is against infanticide, as it is a form of homocide.
xivrox wrote:So you need to look like one. When does one “become a human” anyway? Is it after developing into a fetus? Later (when)? Or ( ) at birth? I was taught it’s the moment of fertilisation, which to me is the most logical one.
xivrox wrote:Yes, it is messy. I prefer when people have choices than when they don’t, and (roughly) that they should have liberty to do anything as long as they don’t harm others. The problem is that when you’re pregnant it’s not only about you anymore… Abortion is equal to harming another human being, the biggest harm there is: taking their life away.
xivrox wrote:No, no detaining, or anything you describe here, that’s horrible as well.
xivrox wrote:But they should take the responsibility and expect that harming (and especially killing) another human being is punishable by law…
xivrox wrote:But I find it terrible to even think about a mother who wants to kill her own child, whenever I hear in TV how another baby was splashed on the ground or something (which is equal to abortion)… It’s just beyond my understanding.
xivrox wrote:And who cares about the billions unborn children undeveloped fetuses that will be killed aborted on the way, they’re not humans anyway.
meidei wrote:I'm just going to say that is convenient how xivrox chooses to ignore wasted sperm. It must be easy to just set moral standards for others to follow.
mōdgethanc wrote:God, the idea of forcing someone to undergo a psych evaluation before having an abortion (as if wanting to have one is a mental illness) pisses me off so much. As if people didn't stigmatize both women who have abortions and people with psychiatric disorders enough, now you want to do both at the same time? Fuck off.
National data on maternal and neonatal health sequelae over
more than 40 years of legal elective abortion in jurisdictions of
Great Britain are compared with data from the abortion-averse
jurisdictions of Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland. Both
Irish jurisdictions show more favorable data than the British. The
Republic of Ireland has a maternal mortality rate over the last
decade of 3/100,000 compared with about 6/100,000 in England
and Wales; a stillbirth rate in 2010 of 3.8/1,000 live births
compared 5.1/1,000 live births in Great Britain; and a preterm (<
37 weeks) birth rate in 2010 of 42.7/1,000 live births compared
with 48/1,000 in England and Wales and 72/1,000 in Scotland.
Legal elective abortion is associated with higher rates of maternal
mortality rates, stillbirth rates, and preterm birth. Cerebral palsy
rates in Northern Ireland, at a prevalence rate for birth years 1981-
2007 of 2.3 per 1,000 live births (95% CI, 2.2-2.5), are low.
TeneReef wrote:Atheist author Richard Dawkins says unborn babies with Down's syndrome should be aborted and parents should 'try again'
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... orted.html
mōdgethanc wrote:I don't know about Down's syndrome, but if it's a fatal disease, then it's the ethical thing to do.
If we start with eradicating severe congenital diseases, go on to disabilities, then even colour blindness we could end up with a society populated only by genetically perfect individuals.
Varislintu wrote:On the other hand, we already do screen for serious birth defects and syndromes.
I've been thinking about the Down syndrome comment. Dawkins was definitively wrong in implying that it would be an immoral decision to not abort a fetus with Down syndrome. Down syndrome is not severe enough to make that kind of statement.
But what if it is something truly horrible? What if it is, for example, the condition of my nightmares, dystrophic epidermolysis bullosa. It's a genetical condition where the layers of the skin don't stick together properly, and the skin rubs off easily from the flesh, sometimes from even a light touch. There's no cure. I have seen in a documentary children under 10 with the illness expressing how they wish they would never have been born. Could one say that a pregnant person who knows their fetus carries this illness, is immoral if they carry the pregnancy to term, even if they could have a safe and affordable abortion?
IpseDixit wrote:If we start with eradicating severe congenital diseases, go on to disabilities, then even colour blindness we could end up with a society populated only by genetically perfect individuals.
I don't understand if you're being sarcastic here. Honestly to me that looks like some kind of fallacy.
Oh, I've just read this. That is a weird thought, especially with the advances within genetic modifications. If we start with eradicating severe congenital diseases, go on to disabilities, then even colour blindness we could end up with a society populated only by genetically perfect individuals.
IpseDixit wrote:You didn't talk about aesthetic purposes in the previous post, you said:Oh, I've just read this. That is a weird thought, especially with the advances within genetic modifications. If we start with eradicating severe congenital diseases, go on to disabilities, then even colour blindness we could end up with a society populated only by genetically perfect individuals.
IpseDixit wrote:Which is quite different, but also quite unscientific IMO because how do you know what the perfect genome is? Perfect for what? Moreover, AFAIK we still have a lot to find out about how genes work, how they interact with one another and with the external environment, so provided that we manage to define what "perfect" is, in any case, for now, yours is just sci-fi speculation.
IpseDixit wrote:So I really don't like it when someone (purposely or not) casts a shadow over a legit practice just because in a possible future (one of many), for which we don't have any particular evidence that it's going to come true, this practice might lead to extreme consequences.
IpseDixit wrote:Furthermore, I'm going to tell you why IMO your future is actually quite unlikely:
Your scenario is extremely dangerous from the point of view of the future survival of our species, because what you call "a society populated by genetically perfect individual", I call population bottleneck, and everybody who knows a little bit of evolution knows how dangerous it is to eliminate variation in our genetic pool, because what may be "perfect" for the present, may be absolutely unfit for a future environment, whereas those who are outsiders in the current Gaussian distribution of our population, may be those who will have more possibilities to reproduce in the future and hence save humanity.
IpseDixit wrote:This aside, we also know how unhealthy it is to always pass on the same few genes, the Amishes who have 6 fingers knows that quite well... or also all the people who have a dog, they know that quite well; it's not coincidential that "bastard" dogs live longer and are usually healthier than those purebred.
For these reasons, I really have a hard time seeing your future come true.
Ludwig Whitby wrote:I really don't know. I'd abort it, but I don't think that giving birth would be immoral.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests