ForumTouchy Subjects ► Abortion: Ethics?
Well, quite simply, that fetus has a potential life and a potential family and potential happiness. Who would want to stop them from that? Shouldn't they get to choose their lot in life? Shouldn't something that has the potential to become a human be treated as one? Your entire argument is based off that it isn't a human, which can neither be confirmed nor denied. My argument is based off the truth: a fetus can become a baby, which can mature into someone much better than those who kill the innocent.
  
E7 said:
Samsung23 said:
Armegor said:
When do you believe life begins, if I may ask?

At conception
To both armegor and Samsung23, when life begins is not a relevant or useful distinction related to the morality of having an abortion.

Samsung, why does a non-sentient fetus have the right to develop into a human being at the expense of a woman's bodily autonomy?

Does the life of a 32 cell blastocyst that's not even an embryo have the same value as a 2 week old infant?

When life begins is relevant because that was the question I asked to Titanlord in regard to the following:

"the caveat in this case being that no life is ended since it wasn't a life to begin with

fetuses aren't a life"

I wanted Titanlord to expand on their position because I wanted an accurate depiction of what they believe. For many people, when life begins is the important distinction. To many, they believe that once an egg has been fertilized, it becomes a life equal in value to the woman nurturing that egg. If you ask those people (I do not purport to speak for Samsung, though I believe their beliefs are similar), they would say a non-sentient fetus has equal rights to life as the woman's body who it inhabits.

That being said, I am of the opinion that there is no "Right to Life", but we should prioritize aiding those who are already conscious to some degree. So, I simply wanted to ask Titanlord about their thoughts on when something becomes a life, as their stance seems to hinge on the idea that a fetus is, indeed, not yet a life.
  
Samsung23 said:
Well, quite simply, that fetus has a potential life and a potential family and potential happiness. Who would want to stop them from that? Shouldn't they get to choose their lot in life? Shouldn't something that has the potential to become a human be treated as one? Your entire argument is based off that it isn't a human, which can neither be confirmed nor denied. My argument is based off the truth: a fetus can become a baby, which can mature into someone much better than those who kill the innocent.

An egg and sperm right next to each other have the exact same potential. But that potential in both is unrealized at that moment.
  
So why not allow their full potential?
  
Are you saying that every egg should be fertilized? The potential is there after all.
  
why does potential matter?
  
Not saying every egg should be fertilized. Think of it as a ball on top of a hill. Once you push the ball, or fertilize the egg, the ball starts rolling. As for potential, it's a chance. A good chance. A chance someone might be happy and have a good life. A chance someone might change the world, or at least make you smile. There's potential in all of us, and we can use it to help others or harm them. I view fetuses as the potential to be human, and therefore equal to one. Same reason why people don't look for gold nuggets, they look for small little pieces. Because without those pieces, they couldn't make a gold bar.
  
the ball rolling down the hill is crushing houses and trees and wildlife on the hill as it rolls down and causing distress for everything in its path
  
Samsung23 said:
Not saying every egg should be fertilized. Think of it as a ball on top of a hill. Once you push the ball, or fertilize the egg, the ball starts rolling. As for potential, it's a chance. A good chance. A chance someone might be happy and have a good life. A chance someone might change the world, or at least make you smile. There's potential in all of us, and we can use it to help others or harm them. I view fetuses as the potential to be human, and therefore equal to one. Same reason why people don't look for gold nuggets, they look for small little pieces. Because without those pieces, they couldn't make a gold bar.

If fetuses are like small little pieces of gold, and fully actualized humans are a gold bar, then by your own metaphor there is inherently more value in a fully actualized person over a fetus.

Pretty flowery metaphors are not the best tools to build an argument.
  
Samsung23 said:
Well, quite simply, that fetus has a potential life and a potential family and potential happiness. Who would want to stop them from that?
The pregnant person who doesn't want or isn't able to have that child in their life, for one.
  
Samsung23 said:
Not saying every egg should be fertilized. Think of it as a ball on top of a hill. Once you push the ball, or fertilize the egg, the ball starts rolling. As for potential, it's a chance. A good chance. A chance someone might be happy and have a good life. A chance someone might change the world, or at least make you smile. There's potential in all of us, and we can use it to help others or harm them. I view fetuses as the potential to be human, and therefore equal to one. Same reason why people don't look for gold nuggets, they look for small little pieces. Because without those pieces, they couldn't make a gold bar.


An acorn has the potential to become a tree. An acorn is not equal to nor is it the same thing as a tree. What matters is the current state of the thing, not what it may or may not be anyway.
  
Samsung23 said:
Not saying every egg should be fertilized. Think of it as a ball on top of a hill. Once you push the ball, or fertilize the egg, the ball starts rolling. As for potential, it's a chance. A good chance. A chance someone might be happy and have a good life. A chance someone might change the world, or at least make you smile. There's potential in all of us, and we can use it to help others or harm them. I view fetuses as the potential to be human, and therefore equal to one. Same reason why people don't look for gold nuggets, they look for small little pieces. Because without those pieces, they couldn't make a gold bar.

First of all, the ball started rolling when all of creation came into existence, and second, like others have said, that ball has the capacity to do much damage. If the ball threatened your existence, why *wouldn't* you stop it rolling before it becomes human?
  
I think it's important to note that the idea that a fertilised egg will be born unless prevented is wrong, because often people raise it being fertilised as the point where it becomes its own thing - but it's not. Foetuses don't get born without intervention. The pregnant person doesn't just go about their business and eventually give birth. Actually causing a pregnancy to lead to a successful birth is an arduous process. It requires the pregnant person to change how much they eat, what they eat, stop consuming any recreational drugs or alcohol, get (expensive if you're in the US) ultrasounds and potential other medication and medical procedures, buy new clothes, etc., etc. It's not just "now that the ball is rolling, it'll come to term unless aborted". It still needs continuous input in order to come to term safely and successfully.
  
And, to tack on to that ^, quite a large percentage of pregnancies end in miscarriage. Around 10-20% of known pregnancies end in miscarriage, and given that that's ONLY known pregnancies and that miscarriage is more likely earlier in a pregnancy, the actual number is likely quite a bit higher. Some sources estimate that half or more of all fertilized embryos die, though that's obviously hard to determine given that quantifying unknown pregnancies is understandably difficult.
  
Devery said:
If fetuses are like small little pieces of gold, and fully actualized humans are a gold bar, then by your own metaphor there is inherently more value in a fully actualized person over a fetus

Society is the bar, the people are the gold.
Fwip said:
The pregnant person who doesn't want or isn't able to have that child in their life, for one.

If they didn't want one, why did they have sex? If you don't want a tree to grow, don't throw seeds on the ground. If you don't want weeds, don't water them. If you don't want to be drunk, don't take a swig.
eriophora said:
An acorn has the potential to become a tree. An acorn is not equal to nor is it the same thing as a tree. What matters is the current state of the thing, not what it may or may not be anyway.

It may not be equal, but you're comparing it wrong. A fertilized egg is a sapling. Just because it's not equal, nor will it be in the next 10 years, doesn't mean it's right to cut it down.
First of all, the ball started rolling when all of creation came into existence, and second, like others have said, that ball has the capacity to do much damage. If the ball threatened your existence, why *wouldn't* you stop it rolling before it becomes human?

Well, I don't know what to say to this one. If you truly believe people cause more harm than good, I don't know why you're arguing with me about it.
I think it's important to note that the idea that a fertilised egg will be born unless prevented is wrong, because often people raise it being fertilised as the point where it becomes its own thing - but it's not. Foetuses don't get born without intervention. The pregnant person doesn't just go about their business and eventually give birth. Actually causing a pregnancy to lead to a successful birth is an arduous process. It requires the pregnant person to change how much they eat, what they eat, stop consuming any recreational drugs or alcohol, get (expensive if you're in the US) ultrasounds and potential other medication and medical procedures, buy new clothes, etc., etc. It's not just "now that the ball is rolling, it'll come to term unless aborted". It still needs continuous input in order to come to term safely and successfully.

Well, first of all, those things are not good for you in the first place. Just because you have a baby shouldn't be the reason you quit. Those things lead to life long addictions, and none are pretty. Yes a woman must consume more (or less) of certain foods to keep the baby healthy, but how can the gift of life be less than that of more meals and larger clothing? Before modern medicine, I don't recall abortions being a thing, nor any type of birth control. If you didn't want to be pregnant, you didn't have sex. That was the way. Now with abortions, we have a safety net for people that throw seeds everywhere and get mad when they grow. This isn't the way things should be. Nor should it ever be right to take the life of an innocent child.
eriophora said:
And, to tack on to that ^, quite a large percentage of pregnancies end in miscarriage. Around 10-20% of known pregnancies end in miscarriage, and given that that's ONLY known pregnancies and that miscarriage is more likely earlier in a pregnancy, the actual number is likely quite a bit higher. Some sources estimate that half or more of all fertilized embryos die, though that's obviously hard to determine given that quantifying unknown pregnancies is understandably difficult.

Good for them, that means they have a 20% chance they won't have to do anything to kill the baby.
  
"Before modern medicine, I don't recall abortions being a thing, nor any type of birth control."

Abortions have always been a thing. References to abortion and methods of abortion date back to at least the early middle ages, and even the Bible (debatably, depending on how you interpret "the bitter water") references it. The difference now is that they're less likely to cause permanent harm to the parent. Childbirth today (and depending on the method, was in the past as well) is much more dangerous than abortion for the pregnant person.

Most cultures in the past used various herbs to either prevent pregnancy or to induce abortions. Many also had some form of "press down on the abdomen REAL HARD" to induce miscarriage as well. There were also early, very dangerous, surgical methods of abortion. Pregnant people who were unable to access abortion sometimes killed their children through exposure since orphanages were not always accessible, especially if they were poor and could not afford feeding another child.

Sadly, we do have a somewhat incomplete picture of how effective many of the herbs and other practices were given that most of the surviving histories of these times were written by men and most of the methods and practices were passed down through oral histories by women, meaning they have not been preserved. In the surviving texts by men, however, it's very clear that they are discussing abortion, birth control, etc.
  
^ abortion has, and will always, happen.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_abortion
A pretty interesting read, especially Criminalization and Abortion methods under the Modern era section.

Nobody is saying that abortion is "right" - nobody wants to abort a baby for any frivolous reason. The loss can be incredibly emotionally damaging. Shouldn't we, as a society, not only provide services that will help lessen the risk for the mother, but will also support the child after birth? Why do we prioritize our concern for the unborn?
  
Noirwhal said:
Nobody is saying that abortion is "right" - nobody wants to abort a baby for any frivolous reason.

I am.
  
Same. People should be able to abort for whatever reason they'd like. Also, plenty of people have a perfectly healthy emotional response to abortion and may feel simple relief and happiness. I rather suspect that a large portion of the emotional damage some people feel after abortion is due to the unhealthy way our society views it and shames it.
  
Samsung23 said:
If they didn't want one, why did they have sex?


To bust a nut. Because sex is awesome and fun. And healthy. And natural. And I'd bet folding money that once you have sex you're gonna want it again.
  
Samsung23 said:
If they didn't want one, why did they have sex?
And there it is, the root of almost all anti-abortion arguments.
  
We've suspected for a while that Sam's position comes from thinking sex should be punished.
  
I don’t think he thinks sex should be punished, I think he’s just coming from a place of thinking that having sex for reasons other than procreation is frivolous.
  
Sex is great.* I highly recommend it for non-procreative purposes.

*Usually, unless either you or your partner are particularly bad at it or not very considerate.
  
I would only ever have sex for non-procreation.
  
Forum > Touchy Subjects > Abortion: Ethics?