When is it ethically okay?

DifferentDrummr said:

Okay, from now on I'll refer to the unborn as a "human life." Happy?

Click to expand...

It helps to stay with accepted biological nomenclature. Otherwise, we’ll constantly wind up arguing over conflicting terminology rather than the core topic.

So you have to decide on what’s more important to you in order to advance the participation in this thread.

Removable Mind said:

It helps to stay with accepted biological nomenclature. Otherwise, we’ll constantly wind up arguing over conflicting terminology rather than the core topic.

So you have to decide on what’s more important to you in order to advance the participation in this thread.

Click to expand...

I'm not sure why using accurate terms is not acceptable. What's wrong with 'unborn?' Or fetus or embryo, etc?

Everyone knows those are 'human life.' IMO unborn is not remotely dehumanizing (a common claim)...it's very neutral.

minnie616 said:

Abortion is the ending of a pregnancy.

Women know if they have an abortion ( elective or otherwise ) ,the pregnancy will end and there will not be an infant born from that pregnancy.

An unborn is not yet a person.

Only the born are persons.

As I have mentioned many times before; I had 6 known pregnancies.
I have 4 children ( now grown) and I miscarried 2 pregnancies.

BTW:
the medical term for miscarriage is spontaneous abortion.

Click to expand...

The correct usage and definition of abortion has implication of prenatal death.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Stopandthink said:

The correct usage and definition of abortion has implication of prenatal death.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Click to expand...

I disagree.

Abortion is the ending of a pregnacy.

There are several medical terms using the term abortion which are used in the context of the ending of the pregnancy or the expelling of the contents of the conception.

If a fetus dies in the womb, was not expelled naturally and doctors remove the dead fetus from the womb that too is called an abortion.

From a medical ditionary.
abortion /abor·tion/ (ah-bor´shun)
1. expulsion from the uterus of the products of conception before the fetus is viable.
2. premature stoppage of a natural or a pathological process.

Click to expand...

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

artificial abortion induced
complete abortionone in which all the products of conception are expelled from the uterus and identified.

habitual abortion spontaneous abortion occurring in three or more successive pregnancies, at about the same level of development.

incomplete abortion that with retention of parts of the products of conception.

induced abortion that brought on intentionally by medication or instrumentation.

inevitable abortion
a condition in which vaginal bleeding has been profuse and the cervix has become dilated, and abortion will invariably occur.

infected abortion
that associated with infection of the genital tract.

missed abortion
retention in the uterus of an abortus that has been dead for at least eight weeks.

septic abortion that associated with serious infection of the uterus leading to generalized infection.

spontaneous abortion one that occurs naturally.( also known as miscarriage)

therapeutic abortion that induced for medical considerations.

threatened abortion a condition in which vaginal bleeding is less than in inevitable abortion and the cervix is not dilated, and abortion may or may not occur.

Lursa said:

I'm not sure why using accurate terms is not acceptable. What's wrong with 'unborn?' Or fetus or embryo, etc?

Everyone knows those are 'human life.' IMO unborn is not remotely dehumanizing (a common claim)...it's very neutral.

Click to expand...

I don’t disagree, in principle, with your point. And I think it shouldn’t be an issue.

It would be nice if most people could agree that.....

Zygote, blastocyst, embryo, fetus - are all known stages that occur prior to birth.

But apparently some don’t accept or agree with this. Some believe that an 80 year old is simply a blown-up version of a zygote.

It wasn’t my intent to castigate those who use the term/word “unborn”, or as I usually post, “the yet to be born”. Or claim them to be inappropriate despite the different beliefs. We still all know exactly what those words/terms make reference to - without the topic being derailed.

On the other hand, “person” isn’t equivalent to any unborn stages. It can be a reference to any stage of maturity of the born. Person, individual, human being, or child (as in infant) - is stepping into “legal” labels that solely reference the born, which DD wants eliminated from this discussion.

So if me saying, “biological nomenclature” throws a wrench into to debate process in this thread - obviously everyone is free to engage in exchanges using whatever terminology that they choose.

In other words, if we can’t past how we independently choose words (the nomenclature, if you will) about various stages of human life - threads will be short-lived. A common language would help.

Removable Mind said:

I don’t disagree, in principle, with your point. And I think it shouldn’t be an issue.

It would be nice if most people could agree that.....

Zygote, blastocyst, embryo, fetus - are all known stages that occur prior to birth.

But apparently some don’t accept or agree with this. Some believe that an 80 year old is simply a blown-up version of a zygote.

It wasn’t my intent to castigate those who use the term/word “unborn”, or as I usually post, “the yet to be born”. Or claim them to be inappropriate despite the different beliefs. We still all know exactly what those words/terms make reference to - without the topic being derailed.

On the other hand, “person” isn’t equivalent to any unborn stages. It can be a reference to any stage of maturity of the born. Person, individual, human being, or child (as in infant) - is stepping into “legal” labels that solely reference the born, which DD wants eliminated from this discussion.

So if me saying, “biological nomenclature” throws a wrench into to debate process in this thread - obviously everyone is free to engage in exchanges using whatever terminology that they choose.

In other words, if we can’t past how we independently choose words (the nomenclature, if you will) about various stages of human life - threads will be short-lived. A common language would help.

Click to expand...

I was agreeing with you, building on your post.

Sorry if I wasnt clear.

Lursa said:

I was agreeing with you, building on your post.

Sorry if I wasnt clear.

Click to expand...

Thanks, Lursa.

I didn’t take your post as a criticism of my previous post. I realized, from your reply, how my post might be misconstrued in the manner that you pointed out. So I wanted to attempt to clarify my comments.

I wanted to expound on my post about terms/words that are derived from “biological nomenclature” vs legal terms and or even terms of endearment that are frequently used by mostly pro-life advocates or organizations - in the hope all participating members don’t get distracted by terminology.

So thanks for bringing up words that we should all be able to use without the conflicts.

Removable Mind said:

It helps to stay with accepted biological nomenclature. Otherwise, we’ll constantly wind up arguing over conflicting terminology rather than the core topic.

So you have to decide on what’s more important to you in order to advance the participation in this thread.

Click to expand...

In that case, show me the credible biological paper that specifies the point after conception that a human life begins.

DifferentDrummr said:

In that case, show me the credible biological paper that specifies the point after conception that a human life begins.

Click to expand...

I see. But not surprised that you’ve come back with something that you think let’s you off the hook of the human life language.

Carry on. Apparently you want nobody to be happy with you.

Oh, let me leave you with one question. How can the development of any form of life reproduction processes continue to develop if the fertilized (original Cell) ceases to divide and increase in numbers to the point it reaches a definitive different stages - in other words, if there is no life in the original Cell (zygote)?

Removable Mind said:

I see. But not surprised that you’ve come back with something that you think let’s you off the hook of the human life language.

Carry on. Apparently you want nobody to be happy with you.

Click to expand...

My ethics are what they are, and I'm certainly not looking for your approval or anyone else's.

Oh, let me leave you with one question. How can the development of any form of life reproduction processes continue to develop if the fertilized (original Cell) ceases to divide and increase in numbers to the point it reaches a definitive different stages - in other words, if there is no life in the original Cell (zygote)?

Click to expand...

If you want to claim that a zygote is not a human life, I'll still need an accepted source from academia to back it up.

DifferentDrummr said:

My ethics are what they are, and I'm certainly not looking for your approval or anyone else's.

If you want to claim that a zygote is not a human life, I'll still need an accepted source from academia to back it up.

Click to expand...

What are you talking about? In hundreds of posts that I’ve made in the Abortion Forum I have always stated that humans can only beget humans. And that’s it’s impossible for a human zygote, blastocyst, embryo, and fetus to be anything other than “human life”. And all maturing stages of the born are human life.

I can only think of a few posters who have said that the unborn aren’t human until born. Most pro-choice reject that belief. It’s biologically impossible for any stage, unborn or born to not be human life.

Look, I raised the issue around terminology (biological nomenclature) because you said you wanted to keep “legal arguments” out and discuss this from an ethical perspective.

Having a reasonably common language helps us stay focused on the topic rather than terms or words when having exchanges.

Again, human life is human life no matter the stage of development. But once we cross over into the discussion of persons, individuals, child (as in infant) these are legal terms, which is now in the legal perspective - the discussion will be derailed. It always is. You’ve been around this Forum to know that.

So it’s in your court on how you want to proceed with this topic.

Oh, the unborn, yet to be born, or unborn human life works great for about 98.9% of the posters. Does it work for you?

minnie616 said:

I disagree.

Abortion is the ending of a pregnacy.

There are several medical terms using the term abortion which are used in the context of the ending of the pregnancy or the expelling of the contents of the conception.

If a fetus dies in the womb, was not expelled naturally and doctors remove the dead fetus from the womb that too is called an abortion.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

artificial abortion induced
complete abortionone in which all the products of conception are expelled from the uterus and identified.

habitual abortion spontaneous abortion occurring in three or more successive pregnancies, at about the same level of development.

incomplete abortion that with retention of parts of the products of conception.

induced abortion that brought on intentionally by medication or instrumentation.

inevitable abortion
a condition in which vaginal bleeding has been profuse and the cervix has become dilated, and abortion will invariably occur.

infected abortion
that associated with infection of the genital tract.

missed abortion
retention in the uterus of an abortus that has been dead for at least eight weeks.

septic abortion that associated with serious infection of the uterus leading to generalized infection.

spontaneous abortion one that occurs naturally.( also known as miscarriage)

therapeutic abortion that induced for medical considerations.

threatened abortion a condition in which vaginal bleeding is less than in inevitable abortion and the cervix is not dilated, and abortion may or may not occur.

Click to expand...

Thanks, Minnie. Worth repeating.

Whether abortion is ethnic as a question depends upon by whose standard is the ethics judged?

I recall one person's view being that if a woman emotionally believes her fetus is a "child," then aborting is unethical within her own values. However, if she only views the fetus as an "it" or "thing," then to her own values abortion is not unethical.

The other question is do I think abortion is unethical and the answer is no UNLESS is it a betrayal of a trust such as of the biological father and an agreement between them to have a child. If that agreement was reached, her aborting would be unethical.

minnie616 said:

I disagree.

Abortion is the ending of a pregnacy.

There are several medical terms using the term abortion which are used in the context of the ending of the pregnancy or the expelling of the contents of the conception.

If a fetus dies in the womb, was not expelled naturally and doctors remove the dead fetus from the womb that too is called an abortion.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

artificial abortion induced
complete abortionone in which all the products of conception are expelled from the uterus and identified.

habitual abortion spontaneous abortion occurring in three or more successive pregnancies, at about the same level of development.

incomplete abortion that with retention of parts of the products of conception.

induced abortion that brought on intentionally by medication or instrumentation.

inevitable abortion
a condition in which vaginal bleeding has been profuse and the cervix has become dilated, and abortion will invariably occur.

infected abortion
that associated with infection of the genital tract.

missed abortion
retention in the uterus of an abortus that has been dead for at least eight weeks.

septic abortion that associated with serious infection of the uterus leading to generalized infection.

spontaneous abortion one that occurs naturally.( also known as miscarriage)

therapeutic abortion that induced for medical considerations.

threatened abortion a condition in which vaginal bleeding is less than in inevitable abortion and the cervix is not dilated, and abortion may or may not occur.

Click to expand...

Miscarriage, abortion, stillbirth, birth are all medical terms that mean different things. Abortion is not the only term used when a pregnancy ends.
Have you ever referred to a BIRTH as an abortion? Of course not, that’s ridiculous


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

joko104 said:

Whether abortion is ethnic as a question depends upon by whose standard is the ethics judged?

I recall one person's view being that if a woman emotionally believes her fetus is a "child," then aborting is unethical within her own values. However, if she only views the fetus as an "it" or "thing," then to her own values abortion is not unethical.

The other question is do I think abortion is unethical and the answer is no UNLESS is it a betrayal of a trust such as of the biological father and an agreement between them to have a child. If that agreement was reached, her aborting would be unethical.

Click to expand...

Thank you. I agree that the individual woman's ethics are very pertinent in the discussion and this has come up several times in the thread. Perhaps you will get an answer.

I would agree with your final statement as well.

btw, are you the Joko that had taken a very long leave from this forum?

Yes, one in the same.

I had Chinese food tonight for dinner and my fortune cookie read: "A rolling stone gathers no moss, but over time becomes polished and will shine." That's me (I hope).

joko104 said:

Yes, one in the same.

I had Chinese food tonight for dinner and my fortune cookie read: "A rolling stone gathers no moss, but over time becomes polished and will shine." That's me (I hope).

Click to expand...

Welcome back!

Stopandthink said:

Miscarriage, abortion, stillbirth, birth are all medical terms that mean different things. Abortion is not the only term used when a pregnancy ends.
Have you ever referred to a BIRTH as an abortion? Of course not, that’s ridiculous


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Click to expand...

I stand corrected. I should have said ( as did my medical link ) that abortion is the ending and expulsion of a pregnancy before viability.


From a medical dictionary.

abortion /abor·tion/ (ah-bor´shun)
1. expulsion from the uterus of the products of conception before the fetus is viable.
2. premature stoppage of a natural or a pathological process.

Click to expand...

As a legal matter, my opinion is that the government does not obtain jurisdiction over the fetus until born. Whether abortion is ethical or not is not the same question as that of government prohibitions.

If you read the framers of the Constitution and the philosophers they read and cited, all refer to a person "born" with inherent civil and human rights. The Constitution specifically grants "birthright citizenship," not "conception citizenship." Until birth, the government has no jurisdiction (authority/power) in relation to the woman and fetus/unborn child. That comes the moment of live birth.

The concept of government of this country is not that the government dictates morality. Theocracies and dictatorships do that. People can do all sorts of things that the majority believes is highly unethical and immoral. Rather, the question is under the rule of law and limited by the Constitution what power does the government have - and any specific power not granted is a power the government does not have, regardless of if a person thinks it should have that power.

Accordingly, any person may both believe abortion is completely and horrifically unethical and wrong - even believe it is murder - while agreeing the government does not have the power to be the morality police on the topic. While I do not believe abortion is unethical (with some circumstantial exceptions), there are many, many things people do that I believe is unethical but also that the government has no authority to be the morality police about it.

Other.

It's none of my business.

Removable Mind said:

What are you talking about? In hundreds of posts that I’ve made in the Abortion Forum I have always stated that humans can only beget humans. And that’s it’s impossible for a human zygote, blastocyst, embryo, and fetus to be anything other than “human life”. And all maturing stages of the born are human life.

I can only think of a few posters who have said that the unborn aren’t human until born. Most pro-choice reject that belief. It’s biologically impossible for any stage, unborn or born to not be human life.

Look, I raised the issue around terminology (biological nomenclature) because you said you wanted to keep “legal arguments” out and discuss this from an ethical perspective.

Having a reasonably common language helps us stay focused on the topic rather than terms or words when having exchanges.

Again, human life is human life no matter the stage of development. But once we cross over into the discussion of persons, individuals, child (as in infant) these are legal terms, which is now in the legal perspective - the discussion will be derailed. It always is. You’ve been around this Forum to know that.

So it’s in your court on how you want to proceed with this topic.

Oh, the unborn, yet to be born, or unborn human life works great for about 98.9% of the posters. Does it work for you?

Click to expand...

I'm willing to go with "unborn human life," but obviously that's still a human life.

And according to my own ethics, you don't unilaterally end a human life unless you have a decent justification. You're welcome to disagree, but don't bother trying to convince me that absolute freedom to abort under all circumstances is somehow ethically superior.

DifferentDrummr said:

I'm willing to go with "unborn human life," but obviously that's still a human life.

And according to my own ethics, you don't unilaterally end a human life unless you have a decent justification. You're welcome to disagree, but don't bother trying to convince me that absolute freedom to abort under all circumstances is somehow ethically superior.

Click to expand...

Again, nobody (or way to few to mention) disagrees with what constitutes “human life”.

Question:

What is the purpose of this debate? For whose benefit will it serve?

I do want to edit this post by asking: “To the best of your knowledge, what percent of abortion are performed at 12 weeks and under. How many latter stage abortions are performed on demand, no questions asked?

DifferentDrummr said:

I'm willing to go with "unborn human life," but obviously that's still a human life.

And according to my own ethics, you don't unilaterally end a human life unless you have a decent justification. You're welcome to disagree, but don't bother trying to convince me that absolute freedom to abort under all circumstances is somehow ethically superior.

Click to expand...

So then what is best for the life of the woman...her future, her family (as many women already have kids, or will in the future), her own self-determination, her contributions to society are less important to you. Because you feel your justifications, or the govt's take precedence over her life...and then would give priority to the *exact same things* instead to the unborn.

This is THE heart of an ethical discussion on this topic...you do realize that right?

Since it's impossible for born and unborn to be treated equally, either legally OR ethically, a person must examine their ethical beliefs carefully and confront the truth, whichever it is for them personally. Nobody said it's an easy examination or a pleasant decision. Nobody said 'being ethical' is all rainbows and ponies.

I have noticed that 99% of pro-life supporters will never ever admit that they value the unborn more than women, even tho, after all (or very few) the 'justifications' they accept for abortion are clearly written out...by them...prove that they do value the unborn more. (Those justifications require the govt imposing its will on her and removing her right to consent to her bodily sovereignty...I dont know how that can be justified ethically.)

After reading thousands of posts on this, I now realize why they wont address in in depth (to examine it further) or admit it: it means that they do not hold the moral High Ground that they believe they claim. (IMO)

Just curious...do you want to be in the 1% that can be honest about it?

As a pro-choice supporter, I can honestly say that while I value the unborn, I value all born people more. That is my ethical position and my stance on abortion is based on that.

DifferentDrummr said:

I'm willing to go with "unborn human life," but obviously that's still a human life.

And according to my own ethics, you don't unilaterally end a human life unless you have a decent justification. You're welcome to disagree, but don't bother trying to convince me that absolute freedom to abort under all circumstances is somehow ethically superior.

Click to expand...

Well it's not black and white. It only is if you consider the born OR the unborn. One or the other. But to impose restrictions on the woman who must be pregnant and bear the child, IMO it's never ethically justifiable to 'force' her to do so. NEVER. If you can justify that use of legal or physical force on women, then maybe you have an ethical argument but I would like to see it.

Abortion does terminate a life. So yes, it is a value judgement. It is an 'either or' proposition. So to me it's about honestly examining the value of both (personally) and deciding.

Removable Mind said:

Again, nobody (or way to few to mention) disagrees with what constitutes “human life”.

Question:

What is the purpose of this debate? For whose benefit will it serve?

Click to expand...

I've bookmarked this thread, I think there are alot of good posts that make ethical arguments here and it's worth future reference.

The arguments are somewhat one-sided towards elective abortion being ethical but there will always be future discussions.