Definitely. "baby killing" is like "pedophile" or "Nazi" - people drag it out to support thier position, with the intention (conscious or otherwise) of making the opponent looking like some sort of monster. Abortion is the chemical or surgical removal of a fetus. No more. No less. Imagine this situation: you don't really want children. But the government one day brings a baby to your door and says "you will take care of this child". Is that fair? of course not. Neither is forcing a woman to carry an unwanted child to term and beyond.
Sorry sam, i missed this (very good) question earlier Well firstly that would depend on your friends reasons for BEING vegan in the first place. The reasons are so many, and not all apply to everyone and for many its not an animal rights issue. For me personally animal rights IS incorporated into my whole philosophy which made me vegan, which i guess is why i spotted the connection and raised my questions. But no-ones view is the same and i even know people who are vegan purely for health reasons Assuming this particular vegan shares similar views to me about the creatures of this planet there are still problems answering your question. Im not sure i possess nearly enough biological knowledge about human foetuses to accurately assess whether or not the aborted one in question would possess the intelligence, feelings etc of a fully grown cow (also, obviously this would depend on the age of the foetus). Also, for me and many this isnt just about intelligence, its about something else, a "soul" perhaps...when exactly does a foetus become a soul if that is the belief? I personally have no idea This could get really complex and my heads starting to spin(!) so for now ill just say after reading this thread i thought a lot about the issue once again, and this time believe i have reached some beginnings of conclusions I realised i personally do not believe in abortion. I believe in Life, and in Nature. Despite this worlds many problems (overpopulation being a huge one) and of course the issue of rape...giving a women drugs to sedate her and then removing what Nature has put there inside her...what is attempting to grow into a new lifeform...is unnatural, and will not help matters. What we need is a better understanding of contraception and more work looking into NATURAL methods Having said all this (and now knowing i personally would never have an abortion unless there was petty much no choice) i still believe abortion should be available to everyone, although the AGE limit of the foetus needs lowering VASTLY. Because the old "dont make me use a coathanger!" posters spring to mind...and i believe in choice. I would never want a young woman to feel trapped and scared and having to give birth to a child who will not be loved or may even be abused/abandoned etc. This would create negative energy for the planet, by creating yet more issues in people. This, weighed up against the rights of a few cells (because my age limit would be lowered, not talking about older foetuses) seems reasonable Ive rambled! Anyway thanx for asking the question, made me think P.s-I also feel it is important to respect everyones view, and although this conclusion has been reached by me i would never advocate the demonising of women who choose to abort. Having thought long and hard about the other side of the coin i understand their reasoning, and respect that
Just a point. There are many things that are not "natural" in the medical word. Actually really non of it is. Without our advances in medicine many people would just die when faced with certain health problems, there for saying that having an abortion is going against nature, then wouldn't the same apply to someone who is having a life saving surgery? That isn't natural either, but no one raises an eyebrow to that.
How can abortion not be baby killing though? As soon as a sperm meets an egg its a baby in my eyes. In your eyes it might not be, People can have a totally sensible discussion about abortion and they can also have a senseible debate about abortion, this is a debate about it isnt it? Thats what the thread said though . . . different people have different views and you need to get the full fact before you can say its resorting to cheap ploys and heartstring pulling really cant you. Arrrggg some fucking people just dont fucking know
Yes, debate would be an equally valid term. And I appreciate that people have different views. I just don't think anything is served by resorting to emotive language. It doesn't matter what either you or I think, legally and scientifically, abortion is not murder and a sperm and an egg is not a baby. A sperm and an egg is a zygote. After eight weeks it is a fetus. It goes for both sides. If I were to call the pro-life lobby, say, anti-choice, or women oppressors, I would be just as guilty. Emotive language often tends to get in the way of reason and evidence. You can present a perfectly logical anti-abortion argument without resorting to it. And you say I should get the full facts before I deem them cheap ploys, well, you're right. But I have only what I've seen you write in a little box to go by and if people resort simply to tabloid talk it's hard for me to judge it as anything else....
No, it's an embryo... If something does not have a central nervous system or spinal column (let alone a brain) on what possible grounds can you regard it to be a person?
Ive only just woken so ill answer properly later but, can i just say, i KNEW somebody was going to say that! Also, i know! Ok ill be back later
Women can still have an abortion up to 24 weeks, is it not a baby then? By that stage the baby is moving and has features like a older baby, the nervous system is developing, a baby can surive out of the womb (with medical help) so is it ok to abort at this point? No matter how many times people have the abortion debate its always a harsh one to have, there are 2 side to every story, there are always going to be people with different views
It certainly is a grey area, and that point has been raised several times throughout this thread - whether 24 weeks is too late a cut-off point. But you seemed to be saying that abortion is wrong at any stage from the instant of conception. I'd be interested to hear on what grounds those who hold this belief do so.
well in my eyes every life is worth living. On medical terms doctors DO get things wrong, not all medical abortions should happen but they do and most of the time its because the parents dont have the time/finances to look after a person with medical problems. No matter how or why the baby was consieved its not the childs fault, it should have a death sentance IMO
Does that include when giving birth means a possible death sentence for the mother? Or a life sentence of having to carry to term a baby conceived in rape or incest? And perhaps a personal question that you don't have to answer, but something already raised was the question that if you think 'every life is worth living', do you eat animals?
Its a possible death senatnce though, if a woman has an abortion it is a death sentance. Its not the childs fault where or how it was conceived. But thats my opinion. And yup I eat animals but I dont see how eating meat and abortion are connected?
So you're saying that when the life of the mother is threatened, the life of the baby is more important and that the mother should be sacrificed rather than aborting the foetus? As for the question of eating animals, it's interesting that you don't see the connection, I think the two are quite fundamentally connected in any question of life being sacred and 'every life worth living'. You are happy to cause the deaths of fully grown animals with brains and central nervous systems and the ability to feel pain every day so you can eat them. Yet you baulk at the idea of causing the death of something which is more like a bacterium than a mammal capable of sensation. I find this contradiction interesting because it doesn't seem to be based on any rational understanding. I find it hard to understand why people think a microscopic bundle of cells that cannot have any concept of self is more important than a fully grown human with self awareness or indeed a fully grown lamb with the ability to feel pain...
I find the whole thing really interesting too, it seems strange to me most people arent seeing the connection here. Its plain in my mind Perhaps a problem is us noble old human beings dont see ourselves as animals? The way we say "animals", its like all the other species on his planet are in one giant group which is completely separated from us in every way, as if we too didnt have animal bodies. This can confuse i guess, but i feel it is important to remember As has been said, a fully grown cow or lamb can FEEL. It is aware and conscious. If protecting human foetuses, even in their earliest stages, shouldnt we be concerned about the murder of other animals who are actually separate and arguably more advanced independant bodies on this planet? Its good to think these things over
I think this has a lot to do with it; the old religious traditions which place humans above all other creatures were based on a lack of understanding of the nature of life as a continuum of development and that other mammals are really not so very different from ourselves. Personally I think this attitude of zygotes being more sacred than lambs comes directly from this old religious tradition which sees humans as 'special' and which should have gone with On the Origin of Species in 1859. Nice quote from Richards Dawkins on the matter: Such is the breathtaking speciesism of our Christian-inspired attitudes, the abortion of a single human zygote (most of them are destined to be spontaneously aborted anyway) can arouse more moral solicitude and righteous indignation than the vivisection of any number of intelligent adult chimpanzees! [...] The only reason we can be comfortable with such a double standard is that the intermediates between humans and chimps are all dead.
