Merry Christmas!!! - or not

[kyle]

thats good
and lucifer thats a good post for anyone to read

[Luke-Jr]

And since this would be my second post in a row where I agree with Luke to some point, which can't be, let me point out that IMHO, up to a certain point, the unborn child can be considered a part of the mother's body, and that thus all decisions concerning it are solely up to her. Giving a lump of cells the same rights as a fully grown human just because in the normal cause of things, it will become one, is a nice touch; but nobody should be forced to do that.

Sure, a child doesn't have the rights nor responsibilities that come with the age of reason and maturity, but it certainly does have the basic rights all other humans are conceived with, including that of life. As soon as "those lumps of cells" have DNA independent of his/her mother, they cannot be considered part of her body, since they are the new human's body.

That you should avoid getting pregnant (by the means of your choice) in the first place if you don't want a child goes without saying.

It's even simpler than that. If you don't want a child, don't commit to having and raising them (marriage). Of course, it goes without saying that someone who hasn't made that committment shouldn't be making the attempt (sex) at all.

Babies are alive before they are born. As Lucifer points out, you're making the claim that they're not a person until they're about 10 years old. Why is it the child's fault that he/she was conceived? If it makes the parents' life crappy, its their own fault. Has it occurred to you that the biological parents don't need to raise the child?

Yes, they are alive before they're born, but as z-man states, it starts out as a lump of cells with combined DNA of father and mother. It has no sense yet, no organs, no physical sex. All it is, is a lump of cells.
I'm saying that THAT isn't a person. It becomes a person as it obtains senses and responses, none earlier, none later.

He/she has unique DNA (and a soul) for a human person. Lack of development doesn't change the fact that they are still an individual human person.

So actually you're not killing it, you're preventing it to be alive.

He is already alive, and developing.

[Z-Man]

As soon as "those lumps of cells" have DNA independent of his/her mother, they cannot be considered part of her body, since they are the new human's body.

Right. I did not want to go that far, but at the very early stages, if you ignore everything you know the lump will become, it actually is most accurately described as a parasite. Parasites have life, too, and the same right to live as any other living thing, but that right has limits. Do you happily let a mosquito drink your blood? I don't. I try to catch them and release them outside (we don't get that many around here), but I notice one made it to my skin, it gets squatted.

It's even simpler than that. If you don't want a child, don't commit to having and raising them (marriage). Of course, it goes without saying that someone who hasn't made that committment shouldn't be making the attempt (sex) at all.

My means of your choice included that, but as you may guess, were not limitied to this IMHO unnaturally rigid ruleset.

[Hans]

it all comes down to as how you define "life" I think life can only be life when you start "living" that is you come out of the womb and start living and breathing unassisted and having conscious thoughts. untill then the fetus is part of the mother and it is her right to "disconnect" or kill it.

btw... I thought this was supposed to be about Christmas

[Lucifer]

As soon as "those lumps of cells" have DNA independent of his/her mother, they cannot be considered part of her body, since they are the new human's body.

Right. I did not want to go that far, but at the very early stages, if you ignore everything you know the lump will become, it actually is most accurately described as a parasite. Parasites have life, too, and the same right to live as any other living thing, but that right has limits. Do you happily let a mosquito drink your blood? I don't. I try to catch them and release them outside (we don't get that many around here), but I notice one made it to my skin, it gets squatted.

The last thing I'd want to do is contradict z-man to support luke, but here I go. The relationship between a mother and her unborn baby is not parasitic, it's mutualistic.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symbiosis

It's even simpler than that. If you don't want a child, don't commit to having and raising them (marriage). Of course, it goes without saying that someone who hasn't made that committment shouldn't be making the attempt (sex) at all.

My means of your choice included that, but as you may guess, were not limitied to this IMHO unnaturally rigid ruleset.

better yet, why don't we round up everyone who can't control themselves in such situations and put them to death? (hint: the "if you don't want a child, don't screw" argument just plain doesn't work. If it did, we wouldn't even be having this discussion)

[Tank Program]

*coughs*

*points out this could turn out to be another one of those 10 page arguments, don't let it happen folks*

[Fonkay]

Luke, I suggest you either read "Freakonomics" or http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Impact ... n_on_Crime

Interesting evidence, and a good book.

[Hans]

It was a very interesting book but that's just another theory among theories. There's no real evidence to say any one of those factors make a difference.

[2020]

respect,
luci

[Z-Man]

Lucifer: Where is the benefit for the mother if the child is unwanted? Mutualism implies that both life forms benefit. I agree with you in the ideal case where the child is wanted, but in that case, nobody is going to look at nasty sounding comparisons of what an embryo can be considered to be anyway Between the "part of the mother's body" and "parasite" points of view, I personally prefer the body part interpretation, ignoring the DNA difference, because it's value neutral. After all, already the ova only carry half of the mother's DNA, and I'm positive that every woman considers them part of her body.

Oh yeah, and excellent long post.

Hans: I wouldn't bring conscious thoughts in. That further blurrs things far more than is desireable. Definitions vary, but there's three main aspects of conscious thoughts:
1. Basic intelligence. The ability to plan your actions to get a desired result.
2. The ability to distinguish between "you" and "your surroundings"
3. The knowledge that other individuals also think in similar ways like you.
All three can also be found in many animals. Point 1 can be found very low in the imagined hierarchy of living things: Spiders already show signs of intelligence. When they want to go from point A to point B, they can analyze their surroundings and follow a planned path and stick to it even when B gets temporarily out of sight. The common test for 2. is the mirror test: do you recognize that your reflection in the mirror is really you, or do you think it is someone else? Many mammals pass that test: Elephants, dolphins, seals (I think), baboons. I've seen a documentary where even a jaybird passes it. Of course, the test is biased by our own concentration on the sense of vision: it's a massivley unfair test to do on a dog. Criterion 3 is covered by the question "Can you lie? Can you actively manipulate other peoples thoughts to get what you want? Or can you anticipate how others react on your actions?" and is also common. Baboon females know they better should mate the young, attractive male out of the alpha male's sight. Crows know that when another crow has seen where they hid a nice meal for later, they better find a new hiding place later when the other one isn't looking. So, if your ethics say that every being capable of conscious thoughts should have human rights, you have to include all those animals. (Note that I'd be all for it, but that's a different discussion.)
What's worse, humans only develop these abilities over time. It's hard to find intelligence in newborn babies as all they do is cry when they're hungry. Until the age of about 2, human children don't recognize their mirror image. And the ability to tell a lie comes one year later. So if you make concious thoughts a necessary contition for human rights, you'll exclude young children. So, long story short, it's best to leave it out.

[Lucifer]

@z-man:

Bringing a baby to term makes permanent changes to a woman's body that have been shown to be beneficial. A longer lifespan, less risk of osteoporosis, etc. Bigger breasts (my wife's unpregnant cup size is now F, it used to be DD). In exchange for this, the baby gets life. On the other hand, aborting a baby with many of the current methods, particularly as it gets later in the pregnancy, does permanent damage to the woman's body.

That's why the morning-after pills are so interesting, they take away the question completely. We're no longer asking if abortion is right or wrong, it's a birth control question now. The only question is "Does she take a pill all the time, or just within 72 hours of sex?"

Anyway, the mutualistic relationship I was talking about is responding to your parasitic relationship, which is purely biological and does not care if the baby is wanted or not.

[Lucifer]

Ok, I went looking for some sort of evidence to support my previous post and didn't find it. I know it's out there, after having 3 kids I've been literally bombarded with it by doctors. Part of the problem was I kept seeing other stuff that looked interesting, such as this:

http://www.advocatesforyouth.org/public ... /index.htm

Abstinence-only programs show little evidence of sustained (long-term) impact on attitudes and intentions. Worse, they show some negative impacts on youth's willingness to use contraception, including condoms, to prevent negative sexual health outcomes related to sexual intercourse. Importantly, only in one state did any program demonstrate short-term success in delaying the initiation of sex; none of these programs demonstrates evidence of long-term success in delaying sexual initiation among youth exposed to the programs or any evidence of success in reducing other sexual risk-taking behaviors among participants.

Emphasis mine.

So, here's the use case. A 14 year old girl has been taught Luke's abstinence-only philosophy, but responds instead to her hormones and the hormones of the boys around her (I hear the pressure can be very strong, even from boys that were also taught abstinence-only...). Knowing nothing but that she's breaking her teachings, she sleeps with somebody. Since she knew nothing, she used no contraceptive or anything. Now she's pregnant and has one of those neat little viruses that cause cervical cancer. What should she do?

Edit: Got some more facts to throw on here.

http://www.plannedparenthood.org/news-a ... ession.htm

Now, Planned Parenthood is to be considered a biased source, and I read through the article and found bias, as expected. The content is still interesting, and their sources looked pretty good, albeit likely a little bit biased as well.

I'd like to declare that everyone currently arguing against luke is now on my side. I can do that because I actually take both sides of the abortion debate and am personally willing to let time sort this one out. So right here, right now, everyone arguing against luke is on my side, and my side has produced facts to support their side. If luke's very next post here doesn't include facts that are at least as well sourced as our own, then I'd like to ask Tank to lock this thread with a big "shut the **** up" lecture. The discussion is useless when it's my side producing facts and luke's side producing assertions without facts.

[Sabarai]

I rest my case

[Z-Man]

Another nail to the coffin of the parasite comparison, pregnancy appears to have positive effects on intelligence. I saw an article in a popular science magazine here (didn't read it, otherwise I'd probably have remembered it earlier) about it. Here's a small online surrogate I found:
http://ezinearticles.com/?Can-Motherhoo ... &id=101589
So as any good scientist would do, I'm withdawing that particular thesis and revert to the earlier thesis that the embryo can (not has to) be considered a part of the woman's body in the early stages. I liked that one much better anyway No question abortion is bad for the then non-mother, that's why I proclaimed it's her choice and I didn't even mention the perhaps-father.

On the other issues, especially the question which education style is best to prevent problems from sex, Lucifer's declaration is entirely correct when it comes to me.

[Luke-Jr]

As soon as "those lumps of cells" have DNA independent of his/her mother, they cannot be considered part of her body, since they are the new human's body.

Right. I did not want to go that far, but at the very early stages, if you ignore everything you know the lump will become, it actually is most accurately described as a parasite. Parasites have life, too, and the same right to live as any other living thing, but that right has limits. Do you happily let a mosquito drink your blood? I don't. I try to catch them and release them outside (we don't get that many around here), but I notice one made it to my skin, it gets squatted.

But do you catch mosquitos, place them drinking your blood, and THEN kill them? Conceiving a child implies a committment to raise them until they can live on their own. It's not like the baby decided to go nest in his/her mother's womb unasked for.

It's even simpler than that. If you don't want a child, don't commit to having and raising them (marriage). Of course, it goes without saying that someone who hasn't made that committment shouldn't be making the attempt (sex) at all.

My means of your choice included that, but as you may guess, were not limitied to this IMHO unnaturally rigid ruleset.

This "ruleset" is part of Natural Law, and the nature of how sexuality was created.

it all comes down to as how you define "life" I think life can only be life when you start "living" that is you come out of the womb and start living and breathing unassisted and having conscious thoughts. untill then the fetus is part of the mother and it is her right to "disconnect" or kill it.

Well I define life as only me, so I'm going to go around killing people. (sarcasm, btw)

Luke, I suggest you either read "Freakonomics" or http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Impact ... n_on_Crime

So we should kill babies regularly to stop an irregular killing of adults? Can you say "the ends don't justify the means"?

That's why the morning-after pills are so interesting, they take away the question completely. We're no longer asking if abortion is right or wrong, it's a birth control question now. The only question is "Does she take a pill all the time, or just within 72 hours of sex?"

"morning-after pills" are still abortion, and still cause damage.