What's new

Why So Serious? (Just a name for my article.)

Some important points made on a number of themes, above. For the moment, I'll adhere to the one I have started.

Thanks for spelling out your position more, there, Haru-san`sTeiraa san. (May I address you as HT, to save time, please? MM is fine with me.) Now as you had, in a moment of wondering in your previous post, asked if I 'were going to tell you that a fetus wasn't an animate entity,' I would respond that we need not worry about that so much at first. Additionally, and quite the opposite (in a way), I will argue that life is a basis of systems that build entities (animate/in~)) and that it it more realistic to focus on sentience and self-survival ability when giving consideration to the jurisdiction of individual being.

I will lay out my general position here (as you have in above posts), and then argue the support for it, and expound on it, as we go.

Up to a point in the development of an embryo (which itself will be some 8 weeks into gestation) I aruge that to terminate pregnancy is the full, natural right of the individual woman. I hold that point to be up to around 14 weeks. I hold that up until this general point, society ought not have the right to demand an act on any pregant woman's behalf against her will.

I argue that to abort a foetus (under around 8 weeks into gestation) is an act of killing a living entity extending from a separate living entity. This should not be seen as murder because we are only looking at the destruction of internal systems.


To abort a embryo (under that basic 14 week mark) can only be seen as murder if the particular case can be shown to be beyond reasonably acceptable reason for having done so, judged from the points mentioned earlier. This is largely due to the individual being's lack of having that required state of sentience and ability to survive individually.​



To me a fetus is a developing baby, which begins to develop the moment the X and Y join together.

This will be one very good area to start with. Primarily, because it is not nearly as neat and simple as it might be thought to be. I'll go into that as soon as I get the chance...as always, I'm quite busy. Thanks. MM
 
I follow a Wiccan path because their expression of opinions is similar to my own views, and I enjoy the insight of others (obviously as I am here). It seems as if religions are like clubs. Some you join because you are interested, some because you feel obligated, and every once in a while, some because you are forced or given no other option. They all have their rules and you know there are some that won't be to keen if you want to leave.
Basically I practice Wicca simply because it interests me to do so.

That makes sense now.

Destruction isn't wrong because it can be found in nature because to create sometimes you must also destroy. Killing I don't believe is wrong if it is done out of necessity, not simply desire. Murder would be based on morality mostly, but I think it is merely killing because of desire to or discomfort, not out of necessity. To me a fetus is a developing baby, which begins to develop the moment the X and Y join together. If a criminal can get charged with double homicide by killing a pregnant woman, then wouldn't it seem correct to charge a woman with at least manslaughter if she got an abortion? In either case, the child will not have had a chance to live. I don't mean to sound cruel about if a woman was raped, but even though I understand that she may not want a constant reminder of the incident, that doesn't mean that she has a right to decide the fate of another, a fetus cannot defend itself and make the argument about why they have a right to live. Have you ever smashed a hen's egg only to find a baby chick has started to grow? It is very sad and disturbing to look at, and I was very young when my cousin did it and I saw that poor unborn chick lying helplessly on the ground, I knew we had done something wrong and it made me feel like a monster. It seems that the experience has made me realize that there is a disgusting sense of power and control when you can decide whether something lives or dies, and I don't ever want to have to make the decision again, but if I did I would always choose to let whatever it was live. How can a woman take away someone's chance at life and not feel remorse or wonder if she did the right thing? People will argue a woman has a right to her own body, but doesn't any form of creation deserve a chance to live and grow like its mother did? How can a person be so sefish as to covet that which they prize but seek to take away? If it is a girl who is very young or who won't be able to have a child I understand its use then. It may sound a little contradictory, but I am being honest with my opinions. If a woman is going to die if she has a baby, then her life should be deemed more important than the fetus. But this is only in life-threatening situations, not for anything but.

We can only do things out of necessity. Instincts press us to. Yeah, sure, sometimes deranged and deformed these instincts are, but in the current situation, we're talking about quite a normal and tame one. We merely want comfort and convenience.

Bit different here. If a criminal kills a pregnant woman, he will only be charged for the murder of the child if that is subsequently born alive and dies. A bit more sensible approach if you ask me.

Life feeds upon life. This has been the way for millions and millions of years. If a find, in an egg, a semi-developed chick, well, sure, I will feel a bit bad, then think "Ultimately, if it had lived, I'd probably have eaten another chicken." Vegetables are life, bacteria are life, hell, even Republicans are life.

Feel remorse? Why exactly should a woman feel remorse? She hasn't taken away anyone's chance at life. I never met a person who said to me "Damn, I screwed my chance at life!" I have only met people who were born at some point. Chance is the domain speculation, where you can see the usual potential human argument.

Pregnancy is the woman's biologically granted permission for a creature to exist parasitically in her body. It essentially leeches "life" from the host. Why should a woman not be entitled to get rid of it?

Yeah, all forms of creatures deserve all sorts of things. Doesn't mean it will ever be granted. We govern ourselves, we can't be just each and every time and follow some bollocks objective moral code and make decisions based on that. Whichever method has more utility, better results overall, shall be preferred. Abortion generates happiness at the cost of very little frustration on the side of the opposition.

Also, you go and make the decision for the child who might just hypothetically go (his experiences and views of life expressed in short) "Oh **** this, when did I ever want to be an unwanted, poor orphan who was sodomised by the wardens?" You will have created a being who is unable to stand proud with spine, but who will at the same time cling to his life because the most basic instincts prevail. His life will be a bloody torture, and you responsible for it.

Preference shall be given to those already born in all circumstances. If I was a woman, and some holy man told me I can't have an abortion, I'd probably grab a coat hanger, bash him proper with it, then abort the child with the damn coat hanger. If the right to self-determination is not protected, the world can screw itself, no reason to play by society's rules, because they fail.
 
Instinct? You call wanting to get rid of a developing human being instinct? It is neither necessity nor instinct. Necessity is something you need to do and can't live without doing. Instinct is survival tactics passed down through generations of the same species until it becomes implanted into your brain that you don't even really have to think about it. Abortion is no where near instinct as it takes a lot of thinking on whether or not to do so. You as a male cannot get pregnant so cannot understand what it would be like to be so.

There are parasitic bacterium in your body too that are necessary for your survival. You can't get rid of them. Having children is needed for humanity's survival, so why should we be able to get rid of a pregnancy.

Like I said,you can never be pregnant. You will never understand how it would feel to kill what could possibly be a living being just like you are. Deciding whether or not something should live or die shouldn't be up to us, because then we are playing god. It doesn't matter if you believe in god or not, to have power and control over another life, even if it is prospective, is a terrifying choice to make.

Do you really think most of those women are happy after they had an abortion? They're probably still miserable. The ones who got raped were still raped. The ones using it as birth control will probably get pregnant again. Sure, they won't have to deal with a baby later on, but they'll have to deal with the fact that they killed their own child. Only someone sick wouldn't feel remorse for the rest of their lives.

Morals have been around a very long time. Which king said "an eye for an eye"? They are needed to help keep people from doing things that are wrong and they establish those boundaries. Stealing, murdering, raping, they are all wrong because they affect someone else by hurting them somehow or taking what is theirs.

Not all children grow up like that, a lot are put in foster care and are well taken care of, or adopted. Just because your birth parents didn't want you doesn't mean someone else wouldn't. I do feel sorry for the ones that grow up without ever knowing a family, but it doesn't mean they always feel sorry for themselves. Sometimes they grow up stronger than the ones with families because they have only themselves to rely on.

and yes MM you can call me HT or Haru, whichever.
 
Last edited:
Instinct? You call wanting to get rid of a developing human being instinct? It is neither necessity nor instinct. Necessity is something you need to do and can't live without doing. Instinct is survival tactics passed down through generations of the same species until it becomes implanted into your brain that you don't even really have to think about it. Abortion is no where near instinct as it takes a lot of thinking on whether or not to do so. You as a male cannot get pregnant so cannot understand what it would be like to be so.

Instincts are genetic, they are not taught. Reflexes may be developed, but not instincts, though as they are interconnected (your instincts will influence the reflexes you develop). We instinctively seek comfort and avoid pain and suffering. A pregnancy is proven to be capable of causing both.

There are parasitic bacterium in your body too that are necessary for your survival. You can't get rid of them. Having children is needed for humanity's survival, so why should we be able to get rid of a pregnancy.

Procreation is necessary for humanity, not every individual child. Besides, we're not really on the brink of extinction. Additionally, survival of our species is our aim as one species, individuals may have different goals. Social engineering is plain degrading.

Like I said,you can never be pregnant. You will never understand how it would feel to kill what could possibly be a living being just like you are. Deciding whether or not something should live or die shouldn't be up to us, because then we are playing god. It doesn't matter if you believe in god or not, to have power and control over another life, even if it is prospective, is a terrifying choice to make.

Why is it a terrifying choice? Sure, it is physically impossible for me to become pregnant, but from what I've seen, plenty of women make said decision, many without much remorse or regret. Its all a matter of whether they get 'mind controlled' by the hormones and to what extent. Essentially, by allowing and forbidding abortion you merely vary the standing of two parties. You either take away the woman's right to self-determination and bestowing said right upon the unborn or leaving the right intact. Now, my view is that since the mother is already a mature human, not a potential one, her standing in this matter should be stronger, the decision should be made in her favour. I'm having the feeling that out of the two of us I am the feminist ahahaha.

Do you really think most of those women are happy after they had an abortion? They're probably still miserable. The ones who got raped were still raped. The ones using it as birth control will probably get pregnant again. Sure, they won't have to deal with a baby later on, but they'll have to deal with the fact that they killed their own child. Only someone sick wouldn't feel remorse for the rest of their lives.

Happy? Perhaps some, most probably not. Happier? Overwhelmingly yes. If someone's been raped, thats not going to change, its fact, she won't be 'unraped', but surely, it is still possible to avoid the weakness, fatigue and pain connected with pregnancy and childbirth and same economic loss caused by the undesired state of affairs and the child. Cut rape victims some slack, honestly, they've been raped. I have never been raped, but I assume its not a cheerful experience, they need to recover not bear a bloody child.

Morals have been around a very long time. Which king said "an eye for an eye"? They are needed to help keep people from doing things that are wrong and they establish those boundaries. Stealing, murdering, raping, they are all wrong because they affect someone else by hurting them somehow or taking what is theirs.

Hammurabi, though he didn't actually say it, his laws were just carved into stone, the famous black stele for example. Though it has to be said that the Lex Talionis, the whole system of equal retaliation doesn't really influence modern law much.

Again, this is how our society works, we live at each others' expense. Some forms of damage are recognised as morally reprehensible and/or illegal, some aren't. There are underlying criteria such as "Does said conduct destabilise society? Does it cause recognisable loss or harm (eg. is there an aggrieved party protected by law?)? Is it justified by utilitarian principle? Is it a matter of private life?" and on and on and on.

In the case of an embryo, what is taken from it? Nothing, really. The mother merely denies to transfer what is hers to the embryo. Surely, she doesn't have any obligation to keep another creature alive at her own vitality's cost if that is not her wish.

Not all children grow up like that, a lot are put in foster care and are well taken care of, or adopted. Just because your birth parents didn't want you doesn't mean someone else wouldn't. I do feel sorry for the ones that grow up without ever knowing a family, but it doesn't mean they always feel sorry for themselves. Sometimes they grow up stronger than the ones with families because they have only themselves to rely on.

and yes MM you can call me HT or Haru, whichever.

A sperm and an egg make up an embryo. Through menstruation hell loads of eggs are discarded. Men have it easy, they just wank or resort to preventive measures. Each egg with the corresponding sperms then is a potential independent life that never developed. Thats how things are. People who were never born and were thus never sent to orphanages are the same. Imagine people salvaging all those eggs and sperms, it would be pretty absurd.
 
I do agree with you on the fact men have it easy, you try bleeding like a stuck pig for a week and have cramps and see how happy you are,lol. I can understand where you are coming from on somethings but others I really don't understand others and probably never will. I've grown up in a very Republican state and have grown up to have very conservative values while you seem to be somewhat liberal in your opinions. I don't have any problems with it at all though because it makes for very interesting discussions. I'm just glad I've been able to relatively hold my own against all of you adults and be treated with courtesy and respect. You have actually taken time to read what I have written, instead of just dismissing me simply as another angsty 16 year old. I guess that you reap what you sow and that if you act mature people will treat you as such and I just want to say thank you for taking the time to debate with me!

Derfel I'm really sorry but I have stated all of my arguments and have nothing further to use as an argument, suffice to say I ran out of steam!
 
While I reason that it would not be necessary to respond to every point laid out in the immediate above posts, I would like to continue focusing on the flow--if not for anything else, for information.

Primodal gamate cells are, basically, sexless, but carried by both genders (and I'll focus on the H. sapien here). The sexual development of the entity will determine, through hormonal flows, the development of those cells--to ovum or sperm. There are a number of factors which, along the way, can cancel out such development so that we will have infertile entities, therefore nature is very much in control at this point. (as easily seen)

The gamates meet up; the larger female with the much smaller male. Fertilization will make the zygote. Whether one has an XX combination, an X0, XY, or any others (such as XXY, XYY, or XXXY; and so on) will depend on genotype arrangements--so to speak. X0 foetuses most often end in spontaneous abortion (miscarrage), as well as some others.

Up until around the 8 week point, the foetus will have not brain. It is totally dependent on its source of nurishment and minerals--as though it were simply an extension of the female's body--and has no function at all as an idividual entity.

Neuronal migration kicks in in the last months of gestation, and it is actually from that point that that we can see an individual being. However, somewhat before that, 14 weeks, we can draw a basic line because the embryo would generally be able to survive on it's own, if it were prematurely delivered after around that point.

the appeal to instinct, in the case of choosing to abort, may be a bit oversimplified, yet when all possible or likely related matters are considered, I am of the opinion that nature itself is rolling the dice, here. We could kind of step back, look at it from afar, and term it instinct.

The law regarding the murder of a pregant woman being a double murder matter, is due to the understanding that a carrying woman in such a case would be of the intention to carry the developing embryo to full term. It would be illogical to assert that that law, which is to protect the unborn, due to be born infants, provides a reason to assert that a woman who wishes to abort a foetus or early embryo should be guilty or murder.

One reason why simply demanding that all pregnacies be brought to full term, and deliveries made, and then adoption procedures be demanded is weak, is that we are clearly dealing with genetical material in all cases. To adopt a child, regardless of how noble and loving a deed, is to accept that those who adopt, have no relation to, nor control over, the genetic material that will outplay in the being that it is. Every child is 50% of its biological father, and 50% of its biological mother, within various arrangements of genetical material.

A further point, would be to weigh whether an abortion would be considered 'murder' in every case; or, even, most cases.
 
Back
Top Bottom