Abortion

Abortion is defined as the interruption of pregnancy, a process which starts once the conception is consumated.

Some consider it muder others consider it "more humanitarian". Sometimes the caprice of barely cautious but sexually active individuals, sometimes a measure to save the pregnant woman's life.

This topic has been widely controversial, specially in the last decades.

This is my personal perspective:

Abortion is a murder since life starts, in my point of view, since the very moment of conception. The embryo and subsequently the fetus are living beings consequently. However, this murder, in my view can be justfied under the next circumstances:

1. When the life of the pregnant woman is endangered and and the only way to save her life is by abortion. In case one of them has to be chosen the woman can decide or decision will be taken by some relative.

2. When the pregnancy is product of rape. The woman in question can decide wether to have the child or not and she is encouraged to have it, however, she hasthe right to be provided with abortion.

3. When the fetus presents deformations that may lead to a failed pregnancy, a stillborn or a handicaped person. However, the woman in question may decide wether to abort or not.

2 and 3 shouldn't be made after 18 weeks of pregnancy however.

Else, within a capitalist framework, a socioeconomical factor may be understandable for abortion.

In my view a woman who ireesponsibly had sex without contraceptive precautions should at least bear the responsability of having that child and forcibly give him in adoption if she can't or is uneager to raise him. There ar enough couples unable to have children for any reason and that would die to raise children. If a woman gets pregnant for her irresponsibly her punishment should be to at least bear the pregnancy.

Else, I think illegal abortion, in other words any kind of abortion practiced for reasons other than the ones I previously mentioned should be punished severely:

I would punish doctors who have practiced abortion with execution or forced labour in gulags. And a person who has requested that abortion will be highly surveiled. In case of reincidence a fair punishment would be sterilization. In case of prcaticed after 20 weeks, a quite extreme but symbolic punishment could be remotion of genitalia, a punishment appliable to rapists as well.

I don't think it's a woman's right to decide wether her son lives or not. Such disregard for life is not tolerable in my view.

What do you people think?

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:

Abortion is a murder since life starts, in my point of view, since the very moment of conception. The embryo and subsequently the fetus are living beings consequently.

That's right. I don't agree with the statement that the emryo is just a group of cells that can be easily removed. It's a living being from the beginning.

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:

1. When the life of the pregnant woman is endangered and and the only way to save her life is by abortion.

Sometimes a woman could be killed in the process of the abortion.

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:

2. When the pregnancy is product of rape. The woman in question can decide wether to have the child or not and she is encouraged to have it, however, she hasthe right to be provided with abortion.

Well, like you said, the woman has no right to decide, whether the child lives or not.

Riddler wrote:

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:

2. When the pregnancy is product of rape. The woman in question can decide wether to have the child or not and she is encouraged to have it, however, she hasthe right to be provided with abortion.

Well, like you said, the woman has no right to decide, whether the child lives or not.

In that particular case, since it's not her fault, she should be able to decide. I would greatl acknowledge a woman who decides to deliver instead of abort but I think it's not completely proper to force a woman to have a child.

Personally, I think its a question of human rights. A woman has the right to chose what she does to her body and an embryo isn't a living, breathing person with thoughts or feelings, so I really don't think it constitutes murder.

oligarch wrote:

Personally, I think its a question of human rights. A woman has the right to chose what she does to her body and an embryo isn't a living, breathing person with thoughts or feelings, so I really don't think it constitutes murder.

So what is life in your view and whem does it begin? Officially an 8 months fetus isn't a breathing person...

In my view people should learn to be responsible of their actions instead of just "repairing" the already done damage.

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:

In my view people should learn to be responsible of their actions instead of just "repairing" the already done damage.

I don't think abortion is taken as lightly as you make it out to be and in its simply a violation of a person's inalienable rights to tell them what they can and can not do with their own bodies. I agree that a person should be taught responsibility if they the are impregnated and are not prepared to have a child but this should be through education and compassion and not authoritarianism. An embryo is not a living person, its not even conscious of its own existence.

fetus have no concessness therefor its ont murder

oligarch wrote:

An embryo is not a living person, its not even conscious of its own existence.

It's not well developped, but it's living anyway. And you don't know if it has a mind or not.

Riddler wrote:

It's not well developped, but it's living anyway. And you don't know if it has a mind or not.

It can't think or feel, its not a person.

oligarch wrote:

Riddler wrote:

It's not well developped, but it's living anyway. And you don't know if it has a mind or not.

It can't think or feel, its not a person.

QFT

oligarch wrote:

I agree that a person should be taught responsibility if they the are impregnated and are not prepared to have a child but this should be through education and compassion and not authoritarianism.

Once education and compassion fail, there's a need to recurr to authoritarianism. In other words, reincidence would require some degree of authoritarianism..

oligarch wrote:

I don't think abortion is taken as lightly as you make it out to be and in its simply a violation of a person's inalienable rights to tell them what they can and can not do with their own bodies.

oligarch wrote:

An embryo is not a living person, its not even conscious of its own existence.

So, you're parting from the base that embryos are not living beings until they have a developed nervous system, right? Therefore we would define life, in your view, as the capacity to feel and think. And I should assume that, in your view, until that embryo develops both a functional nervous system and self consciousness is is part of the female body.

However I could tell you that you're wrong on this respect:

The process through which the embryo is created starts by parts of both the male and female body, right with conception. The being developing inside the female body is already the result of the union of parts of two different bodies. That being is developing there by a reaction caused by conception and nutrimentally assited by the female body. On those grounds the embryo: 1. Is not part of the female body 2. Is developing by a process found within itself being merely assisted and protected by the female body.

Here we would have to define life and when in starts.

Some supporters of abortion argue that life starts after one person is born. This means that even an 8 month pregnancy product isn't a living being yet. According to the Human Rights declaration of the UN, a person isn't a person until it is born. According to this posture, a baby born on Friday isn't a living being, isn't a person even on Thursday. This possition would technically allow people to practice "last minute" abortions since they wouldn't be killing a person. I personally was born after 8 months 1 week of gestation earlier than the average, some babies are able to be born and develop even at 7 months. If the average is 9 and some are born even 2 moths earlier, that posture is simply ridiculous.

There is a more moderate posture. That the embryo isn't a living being until it has developed consciousness and, I suppose, tact. In other words, that position argues that the embryo starts being a living being once it has developed a nervous system. Some supporters of this posture also argue that the embryo is "part of woman's body".
However, everything is the result of the same process in which the embryo "wasn't alive". And that "conscious embryo" is still inside the woman's body using it in the same way it has always been using it: as an assistance to its development and shelter.

So, according to this posture life is product of an advanced stage of embyo development just as its condition of "part of the woman's body".

However this posture has some flaws. The main inconsistency is "part of the woman's body". The embryo always uses the mother's body as shelter and nutrients provision and this dependance is just inversely proportional to development. That is a 5 months fetus is more dependant than a 7 months fetus, yet both are dependant, are not completely developed and are using the female body in the same way. So if a 3 months fetus uses the mother's body in the same way a 7 months fetus does and a 3 months fetus is part of the woman's body, then a 7 months fetus is also part of the female body and technically all the fetus until its birth.
So technically, according to this posture, this baby is part of woman's body until its birth. And we're talking here about the fetus-female body relation.

So, supporters of abortion as the right of a woman to "decide over her body" would technically support a woman that decided to terminate her pregnancy at 7 months of development (even though its highly developed by that stage).

Now the "life as result of the development of a functional nervous system". Every stage of the development is result of the same process which begings with conception. In the particular case of the nervous system, it starts developing cear and particulary early in pregnancy, nearly around the first 3 weeks, actually in the 1st stage of pregnancy. Neurogenesis appears to develop since the 5th week of gestation thus making the nervous system partially functional since the early stages of gestation.

So, I insist, every stage is part of the same process. And the nervous system develops very early in this process. If life is given by the existance of a nervous system and its function as it is according to this posture, then, life begins pretty early in pregnancy and for most of the pregnancy abortion would technically be taking a life. This of course disregarding the fact that everything begins with conception.


And there's a nother posture, probably the most superficial of all, "the embryo is not a human until it looks like a little person". So this posture supports abortion aproximately for the first 15-20 weeks of pregancy because before that period the embryo "doesn't look like a little person". However this could of course be subject to individual judgement. I disagree with this posture for its blatant disregard of the whole process of pregnancy and its focus in the appearance of the embryo.

oligarch wrote:

Riddler wrote:

It's not well developped, but it's living anyway. And you don't know if it has a mind or not.

It can't think or feel, its not a person.

yeah it's just a block of cells bearly viseble.

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:

So, you're parting from the base that embryos are not living beings until they have a developed nervous system, right? Therefore we would define life, in your view, as the capacity to feel and think. And I should assume that, in your view, until that embryo develops both a functional nervous system and self consciousness is is part of the female body.

Even though a fetus has a partially developed nervous system at an early stage in pregnancy doesn't mean conscious. Life isn't necessarily defined by capacity to think and feel, after all a plant is a living thing isn't it?

oligarch wrote:

Even though a fetus has a partially developed nervous system at an early stage in pregnancy doesn't mean conscious. Life isn't necessarily defined by capacity to think and feel, after all a plant is a living thing isn't it?

Ok, maybe not conscious but, how about "living"? Is your arguement that as long as they're not self conscious they can't be considered living beings which have the right to live?

Yes and there are plans which lacking a nervous system per se have some sort of tact.

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:

Ok, maybe not conscious but, how about "living"? Is your arguement that as long as they're not self conscious they can't be considered living beings which have the right to live?

Living, but no more than a plant.

oligarch wrote:

Living, but no more than a plant.

Good. So its living. Yet is not a plant, it's a human being in development.

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:

oligarch wrote:

Living, but no more than a plant.

Good. So its living. Yet is not a plant, it's a human being in development.

But its not developed and its not a human being yet; human rights don't apply to it.

oligarch wrote:

But its not developed and its not a human being yet; human rights don't apply to it.

What makes it be human then? It's merely undeveloped.

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:

oligarch wrote:

But its not developed and its not a human being yet; human rights don't apply to it.

What makes it be human then? It's merely undeveloped.

Self awareness and consciousness.

oligarch wrote:

Self awareness and consciousness.

It's quite hard to determine when it acquires self-awareness and consiousness. For example, brain activity starts shortly or even at the same time as neurogenesis which occurs around the 5th week, pretty early.

Now, since its living and is product of humans, it's a human living being in development.

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:

oligarch wrote:

Self awareness and consciousness.

It's quite hard to determine when it acquires self-awareness and consiousness. For example, brain activity starts shortly or even at the same time as neurogenesis which occurs around the 5th week, pretty early.

Now, since its living and is product of humans, it's a human living being in development.

I know htats why im agent abortan after the 5th week

I honestly think its the womans choice. Who am I, A man who does not have to push an 8 Pound thing out of my peehole, to decide what to do with it.

Diogritor wrote:

I honestly think its the womans choice. Who am I, A man who does not have to push an 8 Pound thing out of my peehole, to decide what to do with it.

exacly it's inhumane and athorityve to force someone to have a baby

Diogritor wrote:

I honestly think its the womans choice. Who am I, A man who does not have to push an 8 Pound thing out of my peehole, to decide what to do with it.

It's not out of a peehole. It's out of an organ conceived for that task.

mattabesta wrote:

exacly it's inhumane and athorityve to force someone to have a baby

Just as I could argue that it's inhumane to kill a human out of a couple's caprice. I have few tolerance to such disregard for life.

it is the womens choice whether or not she wants the baby, note the states or goverment