Abortion

G

Gauss_sl

shitlord
59
0
I don't like the idea ofabortion, but I don't think it can be banned outside of a mortal risk to the mother until procreation is a 100% "opt-in" process, by which I mean some combination of science/government makes us all sterile by default and requires both parents to take a pill, shot, etc. to be able to make a kid.

Oh, and glad to have found this board about a day before the old FoH boards died.
 
Izo

Izo

Tranny Chaser
18,590
21,514
cosmic_cs_sl said:
And the point of this thread is to talk about all aspects ofabortion(induced and spontaneous), including physiology and fetal development? My impression was that this thread is about inducedabortionin situations where the zygote is thought to be viable and whether or not it constitutes taking a life. Why are people bringing up spontaneous abortions?
Click to expand...
I'm brought it up because there is a massive overlap between the two commonly conceived differentiation ofabortion- miscarriage and inducedabortion. To the trained eye this is a continuum rather than separate cases. Where we as a society draw the line, if at all possible when considering as many aspects ofabortionas possible, is what I find interesting. What is life? When does it begin? Does it even begin? These are open questions which are highly relevant if we're to discuss the next step, ending said life. When is it okay, when not, when is it even relevant to talk about ending life? What is conception etc etc. Surprisingly there are not one answer to these simple questions, many nuances. Anatomy, physiology, pharmacology and biochemistry are simply an aspect of it, yet to me they're close to being foundational in this discussion. Open your mind, my friend
smile.png
 
Caliane

Caliane

Avatar of War Slayer
14,626
10,140
cosmic_cs_sl said:
And the point of this thread is to talk about all aspects ofabortion(induced and spontaneous), including physiology and fetal development? My impression was that this thread is about inducedabortionin situations where the zygote is thought to be viable and whether or not it constitutes taking a life. Why are people bringing up spontaneous abortions?
Click to expand...
Much like the In Vitro question. it points out hypocrisy in a persons position on the matter often.
 
T

The Ancient_sl

shitlord
7,386
16
B_Mizzle_sl said:
Seriously who wants a black kid? That's just asking for a world of trouble most people don't want. Call it genetics, culture, poverty, whatever, 1/3 of black people are criminals and murderers. I'd roll the dice with a Mexican kid before a black kid.
Click to expand...
I have no idea why you got a pass on this. Maybe most people have you on ignore?
 
Tuco

Tuco

I got Tuco'd!
<Gold Donor>
45,492
73,577
Izo_sl said:
Normally the egg and sperm meet in the ovarian tubes -> fertilization (conception) happens here and the outcome, the zygote, is then transported to the uterine cavity and implants if possible. Hormones support and sustain this process.
So what you're saying is that a zygote is not life unless it's implanted in utero? Or do you mean it's not an individual until it's implanted? I think your post made this part less clear. Could you elaborate on what you mean by life and by conception then? It directly relates to whenabortionis taking said life - aka when isabortionnot taking a life, if your definition allows for the intervention.
It is crystal clear you're okay with IVF and the process by which we go about it - harvesting, artificial fertilization, reinsertion of the fertilized egg, zygote, into the uterus and administration of hormones to sustain the implanting and continued pregnancy.
Click to expand...
The zygote is an individual's life before it's implanted, but it's a fancy-pants turd until it grows into a baby and exits the mother. And yes I value a baby's life more than a bunch of doomed zygotes in a malfunctioning reproductive system.
 
C

cosmic_cs_sl

shitlord
109
0
Izo_sl said:
I'm brought it up because there is a massive overlap between the two commonly conceived differentiation ofabortion- miscarriage and inducedabortion. To the trained eye this is a continuum rather than separate cases. Where we as a society draw the line, if at all possible when considering as many aspects ofabortionas possible, is what I find interesting. What is life? When does it begin? Does it even begin? These are open questions which are highly relevant if we're to discuss the next step, ending said life. When is it okay, when not, when is it even relevant to talk about ending life? What is conception etc etc. Surprisingly there are not one answer to these simple questions, many nuances. Anatomy, physiology, pharmacology and biochemistry are simply an aspect of it, yet to me they're close to being foundational in this discussion. Open your mind, my friend
smile.png
Click to expand...
I would believe you if you gave an argument about why spontaneous death of the zygote or fetus relates to the morality of induced abortions where the zygote / fetus is thought to be viable at the time.
 
Izo

Izo

Tranny Chaser
18,590
21,514
cosmic_cs_sl said:
I would believe you if you gave an argument about why spontaneous death of the zygote or fetus relates to the morality of induced abortions where the zygote / fetus is thought to be viable at the time.
Click to expand...
I gave you numerous examples as an arguments to why it,abortion, can be seen as a continuum. It ranges from, but is in no way limited to, genetically derived problems (mother / zygote), to anatomic variations in the father / mother, to unknown/known substances making the environment of the uterus less hospitable to the zygote, to unknown/known toxicology and interactions of daily nutritional intake, pollution, to causes we as a society perceive the individual to be in control of: drugs, tobacco, alcohol, to herbal medicine, to overweight, to the medically inducedabortionto surgically inducedabortion. Understand that science knows all of these to be risk factors to the viable zygote, some factors more than others, dosis-dosis-dosis is the keyword and is argument for a continuum.

To hinder misconception of abortus provocatus, take the case of antiprogesterone and misoprostol which are used in pharmacologically induced abortions - These are not poisons in a traditional toxicological sense, but simply utilize the built-in mechanics (receptors, hormones) in the body to hinder the sustained hospitable environment of the uterus and induce labor - menstruation (expulsion of the uterine lining) and labor combined, put rather blunt. It does not take a phD to understand that some substances can affect said mechanisms (receptors, genetics). That is what I've given examples for in previous posts.

We can of course discuss whether this is a linear continuum (which I obviously don't think it is, interaction between the individual exposures) or some other model. To reduceabortionto a dichotomy is, to me at least, somewhat meaningless. To further ask me to 'prove' my argumentation within your fractally wrong world view is rather pointless - The outcome is not meaningful. At least not in any scientific enlightened way. If we differ in perception on the very basic scientific understanding of how the human body works how can we then have a meaningful discussion of the following step - morality ofabortion? To me these are linked - It requires extensive knowledge of the former to even begin discussion of the latter.
I would have hoped the above was comprehensible, thus allowing us to discuss the interesting parts, I repeat: "What is life? When does it begin? Does it even begin? These are open questions which are highly relevant if we're to discuss the next step, ending said life. When is it okay, when not, when is it even relevant to talk about ending life? What is conception etc etc." Insisting on putting these complex questions on top of a fractally wrong world view ofabortionis not furthering the discussion imho.

TLDR; The premise you set is too simplistic to allow a meaningful answer.
 
Izo

Izo

Tranny Chaser
18,590
21,514
Tuco_sl said:
The zygote is an individual's life before it's implanted, but it's a fancy-pants turd until it grows into a baby and exits the mother. And yes I value a baby's life more than a bunch of doomed zygotes in a malfunctioning reproductive system.
Click to expand...
Fair enough
smile.png


First part: When do you feel the zygote has transformed into a baby and what standard do you use to judge the zygote has transformed into a baby? Is it at a certain cell state, morula state, tri-plate state, organs, visual traits, other?

Second part:
If you value said baby over a doomed set of zygotes in a malfunctioning reproductive system, then when do you consider a zygote to not be doomed? At what point? When is the reproductive system malfunctioning? Is 50% capacity the cut of point? 51%? 52%? Do you believe it is relevant to speak of percentages in this sense? What of factors that can contribute toabortion? What of factors that does not directly lead toabortionbut instead leads to a viable yet handicapped state of the child, say cystic fibrosis, downs syndrome? Do you consider a zygote with these traits a non-doomed zygote?
 
Tuco

Tuco

I got Tuco'd!
<Gold Donor>
45,492
73,577
Holy shit Izo make an argument or a point instead of delving into a bunch of unnecessary requests for details. The answer to your questions is that yes, there's a lot of factors and the change from zygote to an old man is gradual.
 
Izo

Izo

Tranny Chaser
18,590
21,514
Tuco_sl said:
Holy shit Izo make an argument or a point instead of delving into a bunch of unnecessary requests for details. The answer to your questions is that yes, there's a lot of factors and the change from zygote to an old man is gradual.
Click to expand...
Point taken:
How can one generalize, moralize and legislate onabortionwhen there is no single case that fits all? We're not dichotomy beings, machines who are either broken or working perfectly or somewhere in between these two extremes - We as humans vary greatly intra species wise. Would you then not agree it's pointless at best, too simplistic, to say "this is life" or "this is taking life" and basing morality and law on said oversimplification?

EDIT:
Not too busy to yell at me and swear, but too busy to respond when I accommodate you? Come on now, Tuco
biggrin.png
 
C

cosmic_cs_sl

shitlord
109
0
Izo_sl said:
I gave you numerous examples as an arguments to why it,abortion, can be seen as a continuum. It ranges from, but is in no way limited to, genetically derived problems (mother / zygote), to anatomic variations in the father / mother, to unknown/known substances making the environment of the uterus less hospitable to the zygote, to unknown/known toxicology and interactions of daily nutritional intake, pollution, to causes we as a society perceive the individual to be in control of: drugs, tobacco, alcohol, to herbal medicine, to overweight, to the medically inducedabortionto surgically inducedabortion. Understand that science knows all of these to be risk factors to the viable zygote, some factors more than others, dosis-dosis-dosis is the keyword and is argument for a continuum.

To hinder misconception of abortus provocatus, take the case of antiprogesterone and misoprostol which are used in pharmacologically induced abortions - These are not poisons in a traditional toxicological sense, but simply utilize the built-in mechanics (receptors, hormones) in the body to hinder the sustained hospitable environment of the uterus and induce labor - menstruation (expulsion of the uterine lining) and labor combined, put rather blunt. It does not take a phD to understand that some substances can affect said mechanisms (receptors, genetics). That is what I've given examples for in previous posts.

We can of course discuss whether this is a linear continuum (which I obviously don't think it is, interaction between the individual exposures) or some other model. To reduceabortionto a dichotomy is, to me at least, somewhat meaningless. To further ask me to 'prove' my argumentation within your fractally wrong world view is rather pointless - The outcome is not meaningful. At least not in any scientific enlightened way. If we differ in perception on the very basic scientific understanding of how the human body works how can we then have a meaningful discussion of the following step - morality ofabortion? To me these are linked - It requires extensive knowledge of the former to even begin discussion of the latter.
I would have hoped the above was comprehensible, thus allowing us to discuss the interesting parts, I repeat: "What is life? When does it begin? Does it even begin? These are open questions which are highly relevant if we're to discuss the next step, ending said life. When is it okay, when not, when is it even relevant to talk about ending life? What is conception etc etc." Insisting on putting these complex questions on top of a fractally wrong world view ofabortionis not furthering the discussion imho.

TLDR; The premise you set is too simplistic to allow a meaningful answer.
Click to expand...
In my view, you're trying to obfuscateabortionto the point where there is no answer. You've been introducing ideas that are tangentially related to a decision to abort. You brought up different factors that may prevent fertilization or a zygote from being viable, including something about cilia and fallopian blockage. That's great and all, but we're trying to morally scrutinize the decision to have anabortionwhen someone is aware they are pregnant, not talk about everything related to implantation, zygote and fetal development.

It's not based on statistics about how many zygotes are viable. It's not based on what percentage of zygotes fail as a result of alcohol or drugs or environmental factors. These are different topics. If you haven't realized, this thread is about "abortion" as it relates to the controversialsocial and political topic. The topic is whetherabortionis morally justified, and included in the moral framework is whetherabortionis considered taking a life.

Here's an analogy (albeit poor) to what you've been doing in this thread. Say there's a thread about murder suicide, then you come in and talk about how pollution from poorly managed corporations have been killing thousands of people in the last 100 years. Yes, it's great that you can expand the topic of murder and indirect killing, but everyone is trying to focus on the morality of the murder suicide, not talk about all the different types of killing, indirect and direct.

The only thing you've brought up that is related is when life begins. When life begins is the moral pivot for justifyingabortion; we don't have to make the topic anymore complicated by talking about pollution, nutritional intake, genetics, blah blah like you're doing. Let's just talk about when life begins.

Some opinions about when life begins (as related to the decision to have anabortion) are more justified than others. Here's the case I presented:

1) Moral scrutiny should be based on what is known at the time a decision is made
2) At the time most abortions are made, the seed has been planted, and the impression is that life will occur unless anabortionis carried out
3) The fact that the zygote / fetus may later die anyway is not relevant to the moral scrutiny of the decision. Likewise, if you kill someone who would have died in a car accident anyway, you've still taken their life.
 
Frenzied Wombat

Frenzied Wombat

Potato del Grande
14,730
31,802
To me the never ending, unresolvable, and entirely fruitless argument of when life begins, either from a scientific or religious aspect, in my opinion defaults one to a position that is entirely based on pragmatism.

-- The world is overpopulated as is. There are too many people who are poor, who depend on assistance, that are virtually condemned to miserable lives. That are born into starvation, war, food stamps, ghetto's, etc. In Africa they starve. In the US they drain the economy and welfare system.

-- Affluent, well to do women generally aren't the ones seeking abortions. It's mainly women who can't afford to raise a child. Children who are most likely to comprise the demographic above.

-- Sex is fun and doesn't cost a single penny. Hence any kind of abstinence education is an utter waste of time. Free birth control sounds like a good idea, but then again those seeking abortions generally aren't the most responsible type. Therefore between the fact that making babies is FUN and FREE, and the fact that people are irresponsible or can't afford BC, there will always be a steady flow of babies that cannot be cared for properly.

Though I feel one should require a license to breed, unfortunately that will never fly. In the absence of that, I would argue thatabortionis a necessity, and if anything should be more freely available. I don't condone it as a form of birth control, and would argue that any woman that abuses it gets a BC implant instead. I dated a Gynecologist who worked at a state hospital, and all she did was deliver ultra poor and crack-addicted babies all day. This should not be allowed to happen.

The irony is that the people having the MOST children are the ones that are least suited to raise them. Society ends up shouldering the burden. Though I do not find abortions to be palatable, they are a pragmatic necessity in light of any laws in place that restrict conception itself.
 
C

cosmic_cs_sl

shitlord
109
0
The simplest (at the same time, logical) argument for when life begins is when the seed has formed.

If you define it any other way, you've made the argument a lot more complicated and opinionated. This isn't an Occam's razor type deal, but why complicate the topic when there's a simple yet logical answer. Here are some examples of overcomplication:

1) Life begins when fetus is cognizant of pain: if the ability to feel pain is used to define life, then it'd be ok to kill someone if they never feel any pain?
2) Life begins when there's a heart beat: the heart is just used to circulate a fluid, why doesn't life begin when the cytoplasm is circulating or dividing in a zygote?
3) Life begins when the brain is fully formed: what happens if there's a genetic defect and the brain isn't fully functional? Is the baby not alive? Is it ok to kill it?

Anyway, the list goes on and on if you decide life doesn't begin with the zygote.
 
Selix

Selix

Lord Nagafen Raider
2,149
4
cosmic_cs_sl said:
The simplest (at the same time, logical) argument for when life begins is when the seed has formed.

If you define it any other way, you've made the argument a lot more complicated and opinionated. This isn't an Occam's razor type deal, but why complicate the topic when there's a simple yet logical answer. Here are some examples of overcomplication:

1) Life begins when fetus is cognizant of pain: if the ability to feel pain is used to define life, then it'd be ok to kill someone if they never feel any pain?
2) Life begins when there's a heart beat: the heart is just used to circulate a fluid, why doesn't life begin when the cytoplasm is circulating or dividing in a zygote?
3) Life begins when the brain is fully formed: what happens if there's a genetic defect and the brain isn't fully functional? Is the baby not alive? Is it ok to kill it?

Anyway, the list goes on and on if you decide life doesn't begin with the zygote.
Click to expand...
I take issue with #3. A baby born without a cortex or without a working cortex is never alive. To use a bad analogy if Hannibal Lector pulled out the cortex of his victim and ate it then you came along and shot the body the most you would be doing is mutilating a corpse. Aborting such a rare case would not be taking a life but it does point out how the formation of a zygote is not enough to assume it will be a life.

As to how this relates to morality if a women expressed that she believed her zygote to be so genetically unstable as to never be born alive then the moral question you face is when do you have the right without proof of life or lack of danger to the women, to force her to continue with the pregnancy?

There is the fact that her belief is unfounded or statistically unlikely but that begs the question "should statistics really determine morality
 
C

cosmic_cs_sl

shitlord
109
0
Selix_sl said:
I take issue with #3. A baby born without a cortex or without a working cortex is never alive. To use a bad analogy if Hannibal Lector pulled out the cortex of his victim and ate it then you came along and shot the body the most you would be doing is mutilating a corpse. Aborting such a rare case would not be taking a life but it does point out how the formation of a zygote is not enough to assume it will be a life.

As to how this relates to morality if a women expressed that she believed her zygote to be so genetically unstable as to never be born alive then the moral question you face is when do you have the right without proof of life or lack of danger to the women, to force her to continue with the pregnancy?

There the fact that her belief is unfounded or statistically unlikely but that begs the question "should statistics really determine morality
Click to expand...
If the baby doesn't have a working cortex, then I don't think anyone would morally repulsed if the mom had anabortion. Again, morality is based on what is known at the time a decision is made. You can add hypothetical developmental anomalies, but the main topic isabortionwhen you know that there's currently nothing wrong with the zygote / fetus.
 
Cad

Cad

scientia potentia est
<Bronze Donator>
24,498
45,439
Whether it is morally repugnant to you or not, until the point where the fetus would be viable on its own (22-25 weeks?) there is no life possible without the cooperation of the mother and the use of her body. The mother should have full control over whether she wants to use her body for that or not. If nobody would object to removing a tumor that cannot live on its own, then the analogy holds for a fetus which is non-viable at the time. Unless you are telling the mother that she can not control her own body, that is.

Don't dictate your morality on others and we'll be just fine. That goes for all moral decisions that dont affect others, btw.
 
C

cosmic_cs_sl

shitlord
109
0
I'm not dictating my morality on anyone. I said that some arguments about the morality of certain actions are better than others. You haven't presented a better / more detailed argument.

What does a fetus having the ability to be "viable on its own" have to do with life being taken duringabortion?

And the fact that you relate a fetus to a tumor is dictating your own morality (a repulsive one IMO).
 
Cad

Cad

scientia potentia est
<Bronze Donator>
24,498
45,439
cosmic_cs_sl said:
I'm not dictating my morality on anyone. I said that some arguments about the morality of certain actions are better than others. You haven't presented a better / more detailed argument.

What does a fetus having the ability to be "viable on its own" have to do with life being taken duringabortion?

And the fact that you relate a fetus to a tumor is dictating your own morality (a repulsive one IMO).
Click to expand...
Its not a life on its own until it could survive on its own. It is merely a part of the mother that, with the mothers cooperation, has the potential to become a life at some point in the future.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.