Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
preacherman76

Abortion and medical ethics

259 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Cassea

Post or two back I made it clear that I don’t think I’m the one that knows what reality truly is. But from what we can perceive, and what I can conclude from that perception, there’s no humanity without sentience. You can have a body kept vegetating and call it a man, but if it’s not sentient, it’s not a man anymore. It’s a corpse. Of course, it’s not always that clear if it’s a corpse yet and that’s where moral and emotional hell starts.

Ironically, death is such a good parallel to the beginning of life. Only we are even less sure when that sentience on which I insist begins. So that we agree on, foetuses in late stages are sentient and yes, I believe it’s quite the same if someone is going to kill almost born foetus or a newborn baby. There’s no clear line, but in first two months there screamingly obviously is no baby, but a zygote that has a long way to go before it can feel anything.

Late term abortions are not legal where I live, and I don’t think you can find many places where they are, and if pregnancy is endangering mother’s life then it’s not an abortion, it’s an attempt to save both prematurely extracted baby and the mother. Yes, primary mother, unlike hundred or more years ago when it was usually the baby that they were trying to save, since women were dying a lot at childbirth anyway and were considered second class humans.

I don’t think children are second class, I just firmly believe a zygote is dumb as doorknob and is not child yet. So I see no moral or biological problem. I do see emotional problems. Huge emotional problems. Which I mentioned before, no woman has ever gladly decided to have an abortion, it’s not something done for fun, there’s a set of damn good reasons behind such decisions. Trying to make such horrible decision for a woman is not actually helping. It must be her choice, since it’s her womb and her pain.

Also, there can be sentience and immense pain with no hope in recovery. What is the point of such life? Why is prolonging pain more moral than stopping it? Why should I be bothered with moral if someone is in pain?

So I think it’s not just morality contest, it’s – or should be – a matter of common sense and basic sympathy too.

A fetus is not a corpse. It is the exact opposite of a corpse. A corpse has no potential for life. A fetus does.

You bring up an interesting paradigm shift though. If a woman has an abortion is she no longer a mother? If a woman has a miscarriage she is a mother IMHO she isn't just a mother when she gives birth. I know this is emotional but pause on it for a second. A mother who loses her child is still a mother. So is a mother who has an abortion. Each circumstance requires two things that people are unwilling to give. Recognition of a child and compassion for both the mother and the child.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
Helen of Annoy

A fetus is not a corpse. It is the exact opposite of a corpse. A corpse has no potential for life. A fetus does.

You bring up an interesting paradigm shift though. If a woman has an abortion is she no longer a mother? If a woman has a miscarriage she is a mother IMHO she isn't just a mother when she gives birth. I know this is emotional but pause on it for a second. A mother who loses her child is still a mother. So is a mother who has an abortion. Each circumstance requires two things that people are unwilling to give. Recognition of a child and compassion for both the mother and the child.

Read again, you missed my point.

Then ponder on arrogance of people who think they are chosen to preach to others what compassion is.

Edited by Helen of Annoy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
FurthurBB

Indeed, Miss (you don't mind the title "Miss", do you?). I think a part of them knows it's a human being no different than a toddler or a teenager, so they try to rationalize and justify their support for abortion by dehumanizing the unborn human and reducing it to a mere clump of cells, no different than blood cells or skin cells. I would say they're trying to convince themselves, not us.

Well, again you would be wrong. There is no need to believe it is something other than what it is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Cassea

Read again, you missed my point.

Then ponder on arrogance of people who think they are chosen to preach to others what compassion is.

You're being really rude and then accusing others of being so or of preaching. I am not preaching. A corpse and a fetus are exactly opposite. The reason you turn off life support on an non sentient person is that there is no potential for life. So it's a pile of cells and a corpse. Not the reality of a thriving, viable and potential human being. Ok agree to disagree time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Doc Socks Junior

No we're not taking about any argument or UM or every persons opinion. We're talking about ethics and morals. Which are derived from what those living in a particular SOCIETY believe.

That's your definition of how they are derived. I believe don't happen to agree. And this is getting nowhere.

Within a particular society and time, yes, slavery can very well be right. See America before the Civil war. Our culture accepted slavery as good for society. People that owned slaves were doing the right thing. That I personally, a hundred sixty years later have a problem with it shows how morals change. Morals are very relative.

I guess I just don't understand why you believe that the moral value of a certain action is merely dependent on the attitude of a society towards that action. In a purely legal sense, I can see the point, but not from an ethical sense. Change in any given society is morally wrong in your situation.

You can certainly believe whatever you want. Throwing up your hands in the air really doesn't help your argument. Really, "the steaming pile of feces" argument? How does "each society determines its own morals, i.e. what is the right thing to do and what the good objectives are", how is that contradicting itself? It can be contradictory to different societies certainly. The cause of strive and misunderstanding certainly.

Yeah, the "steaming pile of feces" wasn't original. Ah well, maybe next time I'll think up something. Such as: what if a society believes that cultural relativity is wrong? Are they wrong? Another problem I have with cultural relativity is that it comes down to a majority in a society. If we take the simplest society, like 2 people on a desert island, the majority would be the strongest person. So might makes right is what you're saying.

Please provide an argument or evidence of this universality. It has nothing to do with how you feel about what other people do or "copping out". WITHIN A SOCIETY THE GOOD IS DEFINED. That does not mean "everyone is right" but within that society. Had you been saying slavery was wrong in 1800 America, you would have gone against the prevailing morals of the day.So you can say you've actually read some of the authors listed here? While there is a moral universality branch of ethics, I find it's arguments weak.

"In fact, one of the—maybe the most—elementary of moral principles is that of universality, that is, If something's right for me, it's right for you; if it's wrong for you, it's wrong for me. Any moral code that is even worth looking at has that at its core somehow." (Noah Chomsky)

Not an argument of course, or evidence, but a good quote, I think. But weak arguments? The categorical imperative of Kant isn't really that weak. I'd like to think the Golden Rule isn't a bad course of action either.

Not physical dependence. A fetus depends on the mother for food, air, waste disposal, etc. That physical dependency is lost during birth. There is certainly a dependency for many years in the future. But it is not directly a physical one. You do understand what happens at birth, right?

No, I'm completely in the dark as to what happens at birth. Please enlighten...YES IT'S OBVIOUS. So only direct physical dependency matters? Which Siamese twin gets to rule the other in your little world?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Helen of Annoy

You're being really rude and then accusing others of being so or of preaching. I am not preaching. A corpse and a fetus are exactly opposite. The reason you turn off life support on an non sentient person is that there is no potential for life. So it's a pile of cells and a corpse. Not the reality of a thriving, viable and potential human being. Ok agree to disagree time.

I apologise and I agree to disagree.

(I turn rude when I think people are rude to me – I think it’s rude of you to accuse not defined but large percentage of women who are pro choice of ignorance and immorality.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beckys_Mom

It would be weird to call you Becky, but okay, I'll do my best. :tu:

Nah not weird, people usually call each other by their names and chosen ID's .. I think it is a habit lol tongue.gif

Edited by Beckys_Mom

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
cluey

I do belive it is every persons right to abort if need be.........but then again.......they should be taking more care while having sexual relations so to avoid this.........it's takes two to tango!!!!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ZaraKitty

I'm pro choice. You should never force somebody to carry a child inside them when they can't. Forcing women to keep the product of rape is also a horrible thing to do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.