View Full Version : seven questions about abortion
lockecole
Aug8-03, 05:09 PM
Should abortion be legal...
1. when the woman's life is endangered?
2. when the woman's physical health is endangered?
3. when the pregnancy was caused by rape or incest?
4. when the woman's mental health is endangered?
5. when there is evidence that the baby may be physically impaired?
6. when there is evidence that the baby may be mentally impaired?
7. when the woman or family cannot afford to raise the child?
Lyuokdea
Aug9-03, 12:02 AM
Should abortion be legal...
I believe that individuals should always have the choice because of extenuating circumstances that the law was not intended for, reducing such a complicated issue down to these rules of this and that is not the correct way to handle such a sensitive and important issue, so I am going to answer the questions on what I personally believe should be done in these instances, this is not to say that I wouldn't support people's decisions to make individual choices which are contrary to mine.
1. when the woman's life is endangered?
yes, an pregnancy should not be a death sentence for a mother.
2. when the woman's physical health is endangered?
yes, as long as the danger to physical health is substantial, I mean this to say, many studies suggest that all birth is harmful to the mother just because of stress, this is not a substantial enough reason
3. when the pregnancy was caused by rape or incest?
yes, if the pregnancy was not the result of a decision made by the mother, she shouldn't have to live through the consequences of a decision she didn't make.
4. when the woman's mental health is endangered?
I'm not exactly sure how this can be evaluated, nor do I believe in many of the definitions of Mental Illness currently offered, (if your interested in classifications of mental illness i suggest you read some work by Thomas Szasz.)
Without more specifics I can't accurately evaluate the question.
5. when there is evidence that the baby may be physically impaired?
these are tougher questions and i tend to lean toward no, unless it is in the most extreame sence, I would have to say that for this to be a moral option, the physical ailment must be scene that will kill the baby at a very young age.
6. when there is evidence that the baby, I believe that some life is better than none at all, the life of steven hawking, for instance, shows that a life full of physical disability can still be extreamly worthwhile.
6. may be mentally impaired?
I would still say no except in the most extreame circumstances, if the baby is going to be a vegetable, that is one thing, having a lower than average IQ is another.
7. when the woman or family cannot afford to raise the child?
no, adoption is always a viable option which is better for the baby than abortion.
Originally posted by lockecole
Should abortion be legal...
1. when the woman's life is endangered?
2. when the woman's physical health is endangered?
3. when the pregnancy was caused by rape or incest?
4. when the woman's mental health is endangered?
5. when there is evidence that the baby may be physically impaired?
6. when there is evidence that the baby may be mentally impaired?
7. when the woman or family cannot afford to raise the child?
Yes.
8. when used as a form of birth control?
Yes.
eNtRopY
so then you believe that a fetus has no life, no mind, no soul (should it exist.) i take it? Should it be legal when the mother is 8 1/2 months pregnant? when the child has developed a mind, and the ability to feel? where is the line between the mother getting an unnessessary organ removed and murder drawn? I have no answers for you, only questions.
Originally posted by Pyrite
so then you believe that a fetus has no life, no mind, no soul (should it exist.) i take it? Should it be legal when the mother is 8 1/2 months pregnant? when the child has developed a mind, and the ability to feel? where is the line between the mother getting an unnessessary organ removed and murder drawn? I have no answers for you, only questions. Hmmmm...late-term abortions constitute probably 1% of all abortions, and normally are performed when the risk to the mother is great, or when the fetus is seriously deformed, beyond any hope of a meaningful existance.
Originally posted by Zero
Hmmmm...late-term abortions constitute probably 1% of all abortions, and normally are performed when the risk to the mother is great, or when the fetus is seriously deformed, beyond any hope of a meaningful existance.
I think your confusing the terms your applying your data to. Late term abortion is generally 16 weeks on, the rate would be much higher then 1% and I believe that a very low percent of these were due to risk or medical problems with the fetus. However "viable" fetuses are generally considered 20 weeks and on, your 1% would apply to the post-viable fetus.
One issue that might discourage post-viable abortions is that women have a 50% greater rate of suicide then the average for other women. This would affect approximately 150 to 300 women a year. (300 to 600 post-viable abortions per year)
At any rate, women have a right to control their own bodies, a right that should not be infringed upon.
Originally posted by kat
I think your confusing the terms your applying your data to. Late term abortion is generally 16 weeks on, the rate would be much higher then 1% and I believe that a very low percent of these were due to risk or medical problems with the fetus. However "viable" fetuses are generally considered 20 weeks and on, your 1% would apply to the post-viable fetus.
One issue that might discourage post-viable abortions is that women have a 50% greater rate of suicide then the average for other women. This would affect approximately 150 to 300 women a year. (300 to 600 post-viable abortions per year)
At any rate, women have a right to control their own bodies, a right that should not be infringed upon.
Ok, maybe more than 1%, I was probably thinking of the so-called'partial birth abortion'(right-wing propaganda phrase).
The suicide rate probably has more to do with societal pressure, doesn't it? The people who drive them to suicide are the very ones who site their suicide later to prove their point.
Originally posted by Zero
Ok, maybe more than 1%, I was probably thinking of the so-called'partial birth abortion'(right-wing propaganda phrase).
The suicide rate probably has more to do with societal pressure, doesn't it? The people who drive them to suicide are the very ones who site their suicide later to prove their point.
Probably Zero, but the 1% is in reference to aborting what they call a "viable fetus" or one that would be able to survive outside of the womb.
As for the 50% increased rate in suicides, I don't think it's as simple as to say it's because of societal pressure. Before a "late term" abortion (16 weeks), and I say this from the viewpoint of a mother of 4, a woman might develop a feel or relationship with their child. But my feelings for my children at that point were nothing like they were by 24+ weeks where I felt my child kicking, had seen them through a sonagram, and later even felt "hiccups". I would tend to believe that these women had formed a relationship with their child and later could not get over the loss. It's possible that their feelings, depression, whatever that caused them to become suicidal were exagerated by the hormonal changes in their body post-abortion.
Many women that I know who have had abortions at any stage have professed feeling a deep loss at some point later in their life, many also felt regret. Unfortunately, I think that some women who might otherwise give birth to a child and either raise it theirselves or give it up through adoption (open or otherwise) don't because of the strong stigma that is attached to unwed pregnancies. *shrug*
And if they felt it was socially acceptable to have abortions, they would maybe get one sooner?
And since when do doctors terminate 8-month fetuses that are viable outside the womb? (Hint: the answer is never in the U.S.)
Laser Eyes
Aug10-03, 04:58 PM
No to all of them. I don't think abortion should be legal in any circumstances.
eNtRopY
Aug10-03, 06:05 PM
Originally posted by Laser Eyes
No to all of them. I don't think abortion should be legal in any circumstances.
And conveniently enough, you're not a woman.
eNtRopY
Originally posted by eNtRopY
And conveniently enough, you're not a woman.
eNtRopY
And he's a Biblical literalist...*grins* if he is consistant, we'll always know his political views too!!
Originally posted by Zero
And if they felt it was socially acceptable to have abortions, they would maybe get one sooner? well, there are of course different circumstances and reasonings for different women but it's not until later in pregnancy (at least the 15th week) that an amniocentesis can be done, so health issues with the child might not appear until after the mother has developed a strong emotional connection to her child....I'm not sure that greater acceptance of abortion is going to decrease her loss, although it might decrease any guilt she might feel. It would be talking for talks sake to debate it. You might also have less late term abortions, particularly in the teen age bracket if there were less stigma attached to becoming pregnant...in other words, they may be more likely to seek help earlier rather then attempt to hide their pregnancy.
But, again I do know many women who have had an abortion in their early months who continue to feel a great loss and express regret for the loss of that child. That's not to say that anyone has a right to make a decision on what they can or cannot do with their own bodies nor does addressing the increase in the rate of suicidal tendancies address the fact that the risk of death from completing a pregnancy is about ten times higher than the risk of death from having an abortion.
Only women are allowed to debate whether women
Your point being?
Laser Eyes
Aug11-03, 02:41 AM
And conveniently enough, you're not a woman.How do you know? If you think every woman supports abortion you would be wrong.
That's what I love about the internet - it's anonymous.
And he's a Biblical literalist...*grins* if he is consistant, we'll always know his political views too!!Take a guess Zero. We'll see how close you get.[;)]
Originally posted by kat
well, there are of course different circumstances and reasonings for different women but it's not until later in pregnancy (at least the 15th week) that an amniocentesis can be done, so health issues with the child might not appear until after the mother has developed a strong emotional connection to her child....I'm not sure that greater acceptance of abortion is going to decrease her loss, although it might decrease any guilt she might feel. It would be talking for talks sake to debate it. You might also have less late term abortions, particularly in the teen age bracket if there were less stigma attached to becoming pregnant...in other words, they may be more likely to seek help earlier rather then attempt to hide their pregnancy.
But, again I do know many women who have had an abortion in their early months who continue to feel a great loss and express regret for the loss of that child. That's not to say that anyone has a right to make a decision on what they can or cannot do with their own bodies nor does addressing the increase in the rate of suicidal tendancies address the fact that the risk of death from completing a pregnancy is about ten times higher than the risk of death from having an abortion. [/B]
Women who give thier children up for adoption also have regrets. The only difference between that and abortion is that they have a in some cases, an opportunity to actually see the child if the opt for adoption. It's all about freedome of choice. While I don't feel that late term abortions can be excluded as harming a viable lifeform, earlier ones just prevent the process. If a woman choose to do it, it is thier right. I see no differnence between a 9 week abortion, and using a condom, as consciousness hasn't yet even devoloped. Those who view it as murder aren't being objective. They are also infringing on someone's right to make a choice that is wholly thiers to make. bottom line, if you weren't there when the process was started, you have no say in how the process unfolds. Period.
One caveat I have is when women use abortion as a form of birth control. That's irresponsible in so many ways I won't even go into it.
People like that shouldn't even be allow to reproduce, and certainly are incapable of the demands of parenthood. Abortion, regardless of weather it offends people or not, is a right and a priveledge afforded by the constitution. People do things every day that I don't agree with. I may not agree, but I don't intervene and say "you can't do that because I don't agree with it." Some would say you're taking a human life, and I say to you "where do we draw the line of "a life" or "a conscious being. Science has shown that fetal consciousness does not fully occur until the last trimester. Until then you're not killing something that "could be" a human if allowed to grow. But if it isn't yet, then it isn't murder. it's that simple.
I also want to point out that you don't see pro-abortionists resorting to violence or taking lives. That by definition, contradicts the very believe of pro-lifers, which is to save lives, not take them. That is why I've always viewed prolifers as fanatical and illogical. Blowing up buildings and wreaking havoc does not add to the cause, it simply takes away from it, and makes them look- well, not sane.
RageSk8
Aug11-03, 04:02 AM
Yes to all of the situations.
Both the experiences of abortion and adoption can traumatize a woman. Most women are never the same after an abortion or giving up their child for adoption. Counseling before and after either experience is a must.
Those who view it as murder aren't being objective.
Is this a "anyone who disagrees with me can't possibly be thinking objectively" type statement, or are you merely stereotyping? There was an interesting discussion going on here, what was the point of reverting back to brick wall rhetoric?
russ_watters
Aug11-03, 10:08 PM
Originally posted by Hurkyl
Is this a "anyone who disagrees with me can't possibly be thinking objectively" type statement, or are you merely stereotyping? There was an interesting discussion going on here, what was the point of reverting back to brick wall rhetoric? Hurkyl, I'm going to have to agree with the statement and go further. To view a question as binary when it is clearly not is oversimplifying. The "further" part is that its an indication to me that the opinion hasn't been thought through. It also indicates a desire to give an absolute answer to avoid arguement.
My personal opinion on abortion aside, I have never once failed to complicate the question beyond a binary answer to someone who has a binary opinion.
For starters, what is the EXACT definition of abortion, ie when in the process of reproduction can you say you are aborting it? Before conception (if you prevent the egg from joining the sperm, you're aborting the process, aren't you?)? After conception but before the zygote first splits? After conception but before implantaion?
Different birth control methods disrupt different parts of the process, which is why most forms of birth control are considered abortion by some religions - yet most women/couples some form or another.
schwarzchildradius
Aug12-03, 01:02 AM
Why is the state, an ostensibly beaureaucratic entity, so interested in the vagina? There's plenty of other people telling you what to do - clergy, psychologists, etc, with good council to give. If anything this has to be a personal, perhaps spiritual choice. When the state interferes with this, its just destructive. example: You don't need a business licence to perform illegal abortions.
russ_watters
Aug12-03, 03:52 PM
Originally posted by schwarzchildradius
Why is the state, an ostensibly beaureaucratic entity, so interested in the vagina? There's plenty of other people telling you what to do - clergy, psychologists, etc, with good council to give. If anything this has to be a personal, perhaps spiritual choice. When the state interferes with this, its just destructive. example: You don't need a business licence to perform illegal abortions. Though also pro choice, it is to me a question that falls in the realm of government. The issue is rights and it is the government's job to protect them.
The difference of opinion is based on defining two sets of rights and how they interact.
Originally posted by lockecole
Should abortion be legal...
1. when the woman's life is endangered?
2. when the woman's physical health is endangered?
3. when the pregnancy was caused by rape or incest?
4. when the woman's mental health is endangered?
5. when there is evidence that the baby may be physically impaired?
6. when there is evidence that the baby may be mentally impaired?
7. when the woman or family cannot afford to raise the child?
Yes to all.
An unwanted child is usually better off unborn, imo.
Originally posted by Hurkyl
Is this a "anyone who disagrees with me can't possibly be thinking objectively" type statement, or are you merely stereotyping? There was an interesting discussion going on here, what was the point of reverting back to brick wall rhetoric?
No I'm simply saying that those who call any type of murder aren't being objective, because where exactly do we define the line between preventive action and murder? What point in the gestation period? what point in the birth control process? Before you can call it murder, you have to define the point of change.
Those would would say any type of birth control is murder are not being objective because murder is defined as the taking of a conscious being. A great deal of the gestation period is not defined as "conscious" so by definition it would not be murder. So then it's subjective.
... So then it's subjective.
Sir, I don't think that word means quite what you think it means...
Originally posted by Hurkyl
Sir, I don't think that word means quite what you think it means...
Ok the let me clarify that it's based on opionions and experiences, not on objective facts.
sub·jec·tive ( P ) Pronunciation Key (sb-jktv)
adj.
Proceeding from or taking place in a person's mind rather than the external world: a subjective decision.
Seems like the right context to me. The definition of the point of murder is subjectively viewed by some, not by the exact science defining it as the point of cosciousness.
The definition of the point of murder is subjectively viewed by some, not by the exact science defining it as the point of cosciousness.
The... exact science... of defining it as the point of consciousness?
[?]
Just to make sure I'm not grossly misinterpreting you, you do mean to imply that your viewpoint is objective, right?
Originally posted by Hurkyl
The... exact science... of defining it as the point of consciousness?
[?]
Just to make sure I'm not grossly misinterpreting you, you do mean to imply that your viewpoint is objective, right?
/sigh.. here we go again.. Another war of somantics.. hehe
Yes my viewpoint is objective in that I believe it's not considered murder prior to a conscious state. Maybe it's not an exact science, in which case it's open to interpretation. If the exact point of cosciousness can't be determined, or at least agreed upon, then it all becomes SUBJECTIVE. So I guess the only way to define murder is to define the point of consciousness. We can determine the point that the brain develops, but I don't know if we can determine actual thought
Originally posted by russ_watters
Though also pro choice, it is to me a question that falls in the realm of government. The issue is rights and it is the government's job to protect them.
The difference of opinion is based on defining two sets of rights and how they interact.
And shouldn't the medical and biological viewpoint be foremost in the government's mind when reaching decisions based on answers that fall under their umbrella?
schwarzchildradius
Aug13-03, 05:15 AM
The difference of opinion is based on defining two sets of rights and how they interact.
Totally. It's a unique genetic entity at conception. But murder, mentioned by someone else, is taking away a life against someone's will. A unique genetic entity doesn't have a will, necessarily, does it? No way modern law can answer that question, nor can science, because the will is the core of human consciousness. Just chemicals, but chemistry can't model it. I digress. I think it's less destructive in total for public laws to stay out of this.
russ_watters
Aug13-03, 03:22 PM
Originally posted by Zero
And shouldn't the medical and biological viewpoint be foremost in the government's mind when reaching decisions based on answers that fall under their umbrella? In my personal opinion yes, but I'm of the scientific worldview. To someone of the religious worldview, religious implications are most important. Hence the conflict. Originally posted by schwarzchildradius [various moral and scientific complexities...] I think it's less destructive in total for public laws to stay out of this. You can't get out of it that easily. You (and the government) have to draw a line. Yes, there is ALWAYS a line. The line implied by your view is that until the actual birth, its still just another part of the woman's body and subject to her absolute precedence of rights. Not my opinion, but I'm not trying to argue the nuances. My point is simply that you have STILL drawn a line.
Zantra and Hurkyl, perhaps you should join my thread in philosophy about morality. I argued that morality can be approached scientifically. That makes it BOTH objective and subjective. The process of finding The morality like the GUT leades to a specific and objective conclusion. But the process itself is DRIVEN by the various subjective biases of all involved.
Not even Spock was always objective all the time: even logic is a bias.
/sigh.. here we go again.. Another war of somantics.. hehe Yes my viewpoint is objective in that I believe it's not considered murder prior to a conscious state. Maybe it's not an exact science, in which case it's open to interpretation. If the exact point of cosciousness can't be determined, or at least agreed upon, then it all becomes SUBJECTIVE. So I guess the only way to define murder is to define the point of consciousness. We can determine the point that the brain develops, but I don't know if we can determine actual thought
You aren't even sure if the meaning you ascribe to things like "murder" or "consciousness" are well-defined; how can you argue that your choice of definition is better in any way than that of a pro-life'r, who can give an entirely unambiguous definition. (Though, as you mentioned, not all agree on the particular definition)
Beyond that, you don't even have a good reason for your choices. As you stated, you "guess the only way to define murder is...". I simply don't understand how you can possibly think that you are being the least bit objective in your viewpoint, let alone how you can be so sure that you are right and the pro-life'rs are wrong.
IOW, my objections are somewhat more significant than a "war of semantics".
megashawn
Aug13-03, 06:31 PM
hmm. Yes to all the questions.
And as per giving a child up for adoption, there are also plenty of starving homeless orphans in africa that could use a good home.
(Not picking on Africa, just pointing out a larger issue.)
I mean, lets bring another life into a world, give it up to some strangers, who could be helping to save an already troubled life.
Basically, it boils down to whatever the woman wants to do. Thats not the case, but it should be.
I know that if I had such power, to give birth, I'd want the power of choosing whether I bring that life into the world or not. Nobody else.
And when I say life, I mean full blown pregancy. There is no good evidence of a fetus being concsious real early, is there? I may be mistaken.
schwarzchildradius
Aug14-03, 01:30 AM
The line implied by your view is that until the actual birth, its still just another part of the woman's body
Not exactly - a fetus is a physically unique human being, and I dont think there's any way to dispute that at all. Heck, scientists have been growing humans out of the vagina for what, 30 years? But since as you've said, rights are in conflict (i.e. woman's right to decide when she becomes a mother vs. fetus's right to be alive) then somebody has to make a choice. I think it ought to be the family having (or not) the baby instead of some senator or judge. It's disgusting, but the fact is that 13 year old girls get pregnant, and they don't always have a lot of support from home. Let's let the medical community and spiritual leaders handle it, keep government out.
russ_watters
Aug14-03, 09:49 AM
Originally posted by schwarzchildradius
...keep government out. The problem is that since some people think any abortion is murder and murder is illegal, the government CAN'T stay out even if it wants to. At the very least, there would need to be a law or court decision stating that abortion is not murder and its up to the mother/family to decide if it should be done.
Originally posted by Hurkyl
You aren't even sure if the meaning you ascribe to things like "murder" or "consciousness" are well-defined; how can you argue that your choice of definition is better in any way than that of a pro-life'r, who can give an entirely unambiguous definition. (Though, as you mentioned, not all agree on the particular definition)
Beyond that, you don't even have a good reason for your choices. As you stated, you "guess the only way to define murder is...". I simply don't understand how you can possibly think that you are being the least bit objective in your viewpoint, let alone how you can be so sure that you are right and the pro-life'rs are wrong.
IOW, my objections are somewhat more significant than a "war of semantics".
Of course the anti-abortion(and anti-freedom in general) crowd can give an unambiguous answer..which is exactly why they need to be removed from the debate. They base all their decisions on religious viewpoints, a stance that the government should not, and cannot take.
Of course the anti-abortion(and anti-freedom in general) crowd can give an unambiguous answer..which is exactly why they need to be removed from the debate. They base all their decisions on religious viewpoints, a stance that the government should not, and cannot take.
Fallacy meter readings... off the charts...
Am I anti-freedom if I think it should be illegal for you to murder me?
Why must one speak ambiguously to be allowed in a debate?
Since when is being against murder a purely religous viewpoint?
Originally posted by Hurkyl
Fallacy meter readings... off the charts...
Am I anti-freedom if I think it should be illegal for you to murder me?
Why must one speak ambiguously to be allowed in a debate?
Since when is being against murder a purely religous viewpoint?
Calling abortion 'murder' is mostly a religious viewpoint, and we both know it. The main problem that religious people have isn't with abortion anyways, it is with people having sex. They see pregnancy as the 'punishment' for having sex, which is why they are against abortion, condoms, the pill, emergency contracption, and sex education. Their unambiguous viewpoint comes from religious zealotry and a hatred towards anyone who would be more free than their oppressive faith would allow.
Calling abortion 'murder' is mostly a religious viewpoint, and we both know it.
No, I don't know it.
Incidentally, are you saying that many pro-choice advocates have a religous viewpoint as well? Specifically, the ones who think abortion is murder under certain circumstances. (such as when the fetus is deemed conscious by some criteria)
Originally posted by Hurkyl
No, I don't know it.
Incidentally, are you saying that many pro-choice advocates have a religous viewpoint as well? Specifically, the ones who think abortion is murder under certain circumstances. (such as when the fetus is deemed conscious by some criteria)
Well, that's why there have always been restrictions on late-term abortions, natch. The 'its a person at conception' are mainly religioso.
And why again does that make it a viewpoint that should not be entered into the discussion? I can understand why a religous viewpoint should not be considered in a context where religous viewpoints are forbidden (such as US governmental policy)... but I see no justification for dismissing without consideration a viewpoint that most religous people happen to hold.
Originally posted by Hurkyl
And why again does that make it a viewpoint that should not be entered into the discussion? I can understand why a religous viewpoint should not be considered in a context where religous viewpoints are forbidden (such as US governmental policy)... but I see no justification for dismissing without consideration a viewpoint that most religous people happen to hold.
Calling abortion murder would generally be considered a government function, seeing as how government decides what is murder and what isn't. Religious arguments HAVE been considered, and have been found to not outweigh personal choice, freedom, the mother's health and well-being, and the woman's right to control her own body.
And, of course, a majority viewpoint doesn't automatically give any legal credence to a viewpoint. In fact, it is usually argued that laws and rights exist specifically to protect the minority viewpoint from undue discrimination.
It's nice to know the issue has been solved and there's no room for any discussion anymore.
schwarzchildradius
Aug17-03, 01:29 AM
unborn infants are aborted naturally by womens' bodies all the time, sometimes without them even knowing that they were pregnant. Being human is a messy business. Just preserving a unique genome isn't enough to justify intimidating young girls (or not young girls) into having a baby that they can't take care of.
As Sagan said, there are far more possible humans than there are humans who have ever existed.
Originally posted by Hurkyl
It's nice to know the issue has been solved and there's no room for any discussion anymore.
Isn't it, though?
Actually, it is, I'm sure, open to a NEW argument, if someone had one. Simply saying 'We STILL think it is murder' is an old argument.
Just as "We STILL think it's not murder" is an old argument.
Of course, neither are arguments, they're statements of position.
I am certainly unfamiliar with any compelling reason for any general criterion for deciding whether an instance of abortion is murder or not (note: that includes both drawing the line at conception or many months later); with the bulk of the rationale I've ever seen on the topic much like your and Zantra's "This is the way things are, period, and you're stupid to think otherwise" statements, I've not had much enlightenment on this issue (and I strongly suspect you, Zantra, and most people in general have not).
In fact, the only substantive argument I've seen either way is the "leech" argument, that a woman has a right not to have this thing leeching off of her body, even if it is a real person with rights. (Though, for the record, I don't it convincing, because one can generally prevent one's self from being in such a position)
That's about where I come down on the subject as well. I will state plainly that I oppose abortion, I think it needs to be stopped. But not because I say it is murder, nor because anyone else says so. Rather, it is because nobody can say for certain that it isn't. We cannot continue terminating fetuses based on the mere possibility that they might not be people. The practice should be halted untill we know if it's killing anyone or not.
Originally posted by Hurkyl
Just as "We STILL think it's not murder" is an old argument.
Of course, neither are arguments, they're statements of position.
I am certainly unfamiliar with any compelling reason for any general criterion for deciding whether an instance of abortion is murder or not (note: that includes both drawing the line at conception or many months later); with the bulk of the rationale I've ever seen on the topic much like your and Zantra's "This is the way things are, period, and you're stupid to think otherwise" statements, I've not had much enlightenment on this issue (and I strongly suspect you, Zantra, and most people in general have not).
In fact, the only substantive argument I've seen either way is the "leech" argument, that a woman has a right not to have this thing leeching off of her body, even if it is a real person with rights. (Though, for the record, I don't it convincing, because one can generally prevent one's self from being in such a position)
First off, just because I think you are wrong, it doesn't automatically follow that I think you are stupid.
Secondly, the point where a fetus is considered a human being has been legally based on medical science, generally when the fetus has reached a certain level of development. It wasn't just an arbitrary decision to decide that the transition would be at 6 months.
Why do you suspect that we haven't heard any good arguments? Because we don't agree with you, or because we haven't been posting all the reasons?
First off, just because I think you are wrong, it doesn't automatically follow that I think you are stupid.
Ack, I didn't mean to edit out my parenthetical that I knew I was exaggerating here! I know not "stupid", but for instance "subjective", as Zantra was claiming.
Why do you suspect that we haven't heard any good arguments? Because we don't agree with you, or because we haven't been posting all the reasons?
Because I have encountered very few arguments that had any substance to them, and y'all's posts have been pretty much mirroring the empty "arguments" that I have encountered.
Lack of evidence y'all know better is, of course, not evidence y'all don't know better, but it doesn't mean I can't suspect it. [;)]
Well, 6 months is the recognized point at which a fetus has a developed nervous system, and could possibly live outside the womb. Last time I checked, what makes us 'special'(not that I buy into humans being special in any way) is the human intellect, which a collection of cells the size of my thumb simply doesn't have any claim to.
schwarzchildradius
Aug18-03, 02:56 AM
I've heard a lot of people say that 'Bush is a murderer' (could've been greenpeace). Murder by definition is killing another human being under conditions specifically covered in law. That entry is followed by a dozen colloquial uses.
So a physician, or Bush, is only a true murderer if he is Convicted of Murder.
Therefore, despite whatever moral feelings you may have about it, it's not murder as long as it is legal.
**
the state takes human life regularly in executions, that's not murder at all but a set of circumstances and possibly facts allowing the killing of one human being by another.
Laser Eyes
Aug19-03, 09:57 AM
Secondly, the point where a fetus is considered a human being has been legally based on medical science, generally when the fetus has reached a certain level of development. It wasn't just an arbitrary decision to decide that the transition would be at 6 months.To pick a point somewhere between conception and birth and say at this very moment the fetus becomes a human but one second before it was not sounds very arbitrary.
Originally posted by Laser Eyes
To pick a point somewhere between conception and birth and say at this very moment the fetus becomes a human but one second before it was not sounds very arbitrary.
Well, it seems more arbitrary to me to call a lump of cells smaller than a grape a human being...
schwarzchildradius
Aug22-03, 12:10 AM
the fetus IS human at conception, but that doesn't mean that we can't choose to end its life for a greater good! I just think that if you have a legally enforced death penalty you can't make abortion illegal, in principle.
quote (from the far back reaches of antiquity):
------------------------------------------------------------------
And conveniently enough, you're not a woman.
------------------------------------------------------------------
this is irrelevant. morality knows no gender.
Quote:
"Well, it seems more arbitrary to me to call a lump of cells smaller than a grape a human being..."
-------------------------------------------------------------------
no it doesn't.
rather, it is much less arbitrary when there is no transition from non-human to human.
think about it: anything that is a human was conceived as a human and will die as a human without any "phase transitions", which is not very arbitrary. what is arbitrary though, is this insertion of semantics arguments at periods of time that are convenient to the destruction of human life.
for instance "before 6 months have passed we'll change the name of the thing we are talking about so that we can get rid of it without throwing up".
Galatea
Aug28-03, 03:46 AM
Originally posted by dschou
quote (from the far back reaches of antiquity):
------------------------------------------------------------------
And conveniently enough, you're not a woman.
------------------------------------------------------------------
this is irrelevant. morality knows no gender.
Where is the morality in bringing an unwanted child into the world? It's like a toss-up between quick or slow death.
This is a heated debate and while I may have objective feelings on it (indeed, I do) I must say (subjectively) that it bothers me tremendously to see predominantly men arguing about it. I don't like the idea of anyone legislating their morality but for some reason on this particular topic, the idea that men feel this is any of their business perplexes me.
Is it murder? Is it not? Chicken or egg? Are they humans with rights or just leeches on the mother? Does something that cannot function without a host "count"? Is it more unfair to end somethings life when no one wanted it in the first place? Is it really _any_ of your business what I do with my body? If so, why?
Originally posted by Galatea
Where is the morality in bringing an unwanted child into the world? It's like a toss-up between quick or slow death.
following this reasoning we should chop up all the cancer patients as well.
Originally posted by dschou
quote (from the far back reaches of antiquity):
------------------------------------------------------------------
And conveniently enough, you're not a woman.
------------------------------------------------------------------
this is irrelevant. morality knows no gender. Morality doesn't exist...ethics works, and it is more ethical to eliminate an unfeeling, unknowing fetus than it is to bring an unwanted child into the world. 'Morality' is usually based on some religious idea, which is likewise based on wanting to dominate others.
Originally posted by Zero
Morality doesn't exist...ethics works, and it is more ethical to eliminate an unfeeling, unknowing fetus than it is to bring an unwanted child into the world. 'Morality' is usually based on some religious idea, which is likewise based on wanting to dominate others.
i can't say that this is an imaginative solution to the problem. your modus operandus: when faced with a moral dilemna, simply state that morals do not exist and continue the killing.
likewise, as i plummet to my death, i can simply follow suit with wile-coyote and deny that gravity exists. this will inevitably solve all acceleration problems. and when i try to grasp the horror of the holocaust, i need only deny the jews their humanity and the problem is solved. what a neat and tidy affair.
Galatea
Aug28-03, 05:44 PM
Originally posted by dschou
following this reasoning we should chop up all the cancer patients as well.
Umm, not exactly. Cancer patients can choose to receive treatment or not just as mothers should be able to choose if they'd like to continue with a pregnancy or not.
I'm curious; what is the practical difference between ethics and morals?
Originally posted by Galatea
Umm, not exactly. Cancer patients can choose to receive treatment or not just as mothers should be able to choose if they'd like to continue with a pregnancy or not.
again, your honor, relevance? i quote once more:
"Where is the morality in bringing an unwanted child into the world? It's like a toss-up between quick or slow death."
the issue is the cancer patient's life and quick/slow death juxtaposed against the child's life and quick/slow death, not the mother's. so what you should really be questioning, is whether the child can decide to "end treatment", i.e. abort spontaneously.
Unlike the cancer patient, the foetus can't talk. It's a toss up as to whether the foetus can be considered human, as we judge that it has not gained the distinctive human quality - a human mind.
Secondly, we have another similarity here - the cancer patient is reliant on their life support system, as is the fetus on the mother. The point is of dependence - since the fetus is dependent on the mother for life, the mother has the choice of providing the service. Or say, switching off the life support system.
But does your argument hold up to any slight modification of the analogy? What if, say, the cancer patient is in a coma? Or if 'e is merely unconscious, or even just asleep?
Or what if it's not someone at the end of their life? Is it ethical to disconnect from life-support an unconscious child(who will recover fully from whatever happened) who lives in poverty with parents who don't love him and want him dead?
Originally posted by Hurkyl
I'm curious; what is the practical difference between ethics and morals? Morals are for people too lazy to have ethics?[6)]
Originally posted by Hurkyl
But does your argument hold up to any slight modification of the analogy? What if, say, the cancer patient is in a coma? Or if 'e is merely unconscious, or even just asleep?
Or what if it's not someone at the end of their life? Is it ethical to disconnect from life-support an unconscious child(who will recover fully from whatever happened) who lives in poverty with parents who don't love him and want him dead? Well, if you keep comparing a fetus to a person, we won't ever egree, now will we?[;)]
Originally posted by dschou
i can't say that this is an imaginative solution to the problem. your modus operandus: when faced with a moral dilemna, simply state that morals do not exist and continue the killing.
likewise, as i plummet to my death, i can simply follow suit with wile-coyote and deny that gravity exists. this will inevitably solve all acceleration problems. and when i try to grasp the horror of the holocaust, i need only deny the jews their humanity and the problem is solved. what a neat and tidy affair.
LOL, you are funny in your way, I suppose. I never claimed that it wasn't an ethical dilemma, now did I? Ethics are better than morality, as I see it...a topic better suited for the Philosophy board, I'm sure.
Anyways, the point is, this is not a black and white issue, in my opinion, and a 6 week old isn't a person IMO, therefore has no right to anything whatsoever.
Morals are for people too lazy to have ethics?
I'm confused then; if the only difference between morals and ethics is the person who has them, what can be the meaning of your previous post on morality?
Well, if you keep comparing a fetus to a person, we won't ever egree, now will we?
Might I point out that I was responding to a post that is comparing a fetus to a person?
And, of course, that the question of when is a fetus a person is one of the core issues in the pro-choice / pro-life debate, so it's somewhat intellectually dishonest to ridicule the idea.
And for funsies, you certainly seemed to accept that we can compare a fetus to a person in the latter weeks of the pregnancy; are you a hypocrit? [;)]
But does your argument hold up to any slight modification of the analogy? What if, say, the cancer patient is in a coma? Or if 'e is merely unconscious, or even just asleep?
Or what if it's not someone at the end of their life? Is it ethical to disconnect from life-support an unconscious child(who will recover fully from whatever happened) who lives in poverty with parents who don't love him and want him dead?
Yep, I expected that. Notice the exact words I used - "Never gained".
That the mind is dependent on experiences - that it is these that form the person, and thus create our individualism. As the fetus has no memories and hence no unique mind, and is not important to someone else, it's existence has no unique significance and so it's termination is not really a loss in terms of humanity.
If we do not consider that, then how do you rule out the absurd situation of not killing bacteria, because they are "unconscious children" that will wake up in a few billion years of evolution? It may be arbitary (as humans are IMHO not absolutely "special" in any sense), but the social measure of murder is based on human life, and human attachment.
Originally posted by Hurkyl
And for funsies, you certainly seemed to accept that we can compare a fetus to a person in the latter weeks of the pregnancy; are you a hypocrit? [;)] Nope, not a hypocrit at all...how does that make me a hypocrit?
Click me, please?!? (http://www.ffrf.org/fttoday/jan_feb97/morris.html)
Here's an interesting argument...
schwarzchildradius
Aug30-03, 07:30 AM
'Is the fetus is a person' is not an accurate question, as 'person' has a number of meanings, not all exclusively human. There's no way around the fact that an abortion is an intentional destruction of a unique human genome. But that's not murder, any more than casualties in a war or the death of condemned criminals.
NavidRules
Sep22-03, 11:49 PM
A fetus is a potential human. It is safe to assume that the fetus will become a human/person, therefore killing the fetus destroys the potential human, therefore killing a human. I disagree with abortion, unless rape is involved. The only thing is, if abortion was illegal except for rape cases, all women who want abortion will say they were raped. So based in a good society, abortion is wrong, because you disallow the fetus to live.
Think of it like this, what if the fetus you killed would have grown up to find a cure for cancer/aids/any other major disease. The fact is that you don't know who the fetus will grow up to be. You will be killing off potential people, and even if the possibility of the fetus growing to do something great is slim, there is still the possibility and since we killing them doesn't give them even a chance, it would be wrong to go for abortion. I agree with ADOPTION, if the problem is raising the child, adoption is always a better way to go, because you are giving the fetus-soon-to-be-human-being a chance for survival.
For the same reason I don't agree with euthinasia because you simply don't know what the future can hold, and wherever there's potential, a chance should be given.
What do you think?
Originally posted by NavidRules
A fetus is a potential human. It is safe to assume that the fetus will become a human/person, therefore killing the fetus destroys the potential human, therefore killing a human. I disagree with abortion, unless rape is involved. The only thing is, if abortion was illegal except for rape cases, all women who want abortion will say they were raped. So based in a good society, abortion is wrong, because you disallow the fetus to live.
Think of it like this, what if the fetus you killed would have grown up to find a cure for cancer/aids/any other major disease. The fact is that you don't know who the fetus will grow up to be. You will be killing off potential people, and even if the possibility of the fetus growing to do something great is slim, there is still the possibility and since we killing them doesn't give them even a chance, it would be wrong to go for abortion. I agree with ADOPTION, if the problem is raising the child, adoption is always a better way to go, because you are giving the fetus-soon-to-be-human-being a chance for survival.
For the same reason I don't agree with euthinasia because you simply don't know what the future can hold, and wherever there's potential, a chance should be given.
What do you think? I think the biology of it refutes you..plus, while a fetus may be a potential person, the mother is a REAL person, and therefore should have the final say over her body...unless you think a woman is nothing more than an incubator.
A fetus is a potential human.
So is a rock, with a few billion years of gestation time. So is a sperm and an egg. Or an animal. The "life starts at conception" idea is drawing a very arbitary line...
So based in a good society, abortion is wrong, because you disallow the fetus to live.
What is society but what people want? On such a basis, I can define the salvation of every bacteria as "good", and make everybody evil.
Think of it like this, what if the fetus you killed would have grown up to find a cure for cancer/aids/any other major disease.
What if the fetus becomes a new Hitler? This argument is worthless.
The fact of the matter is that you are choosing your probabilities to reinforce your view - you refuse to look at the flip side of the coin.
NavidRules
Sep24-03, 09:47 PM
Zero:
No i dont think a women is an incubator.
Well with the idealogy that anybody can do whatever to their body, cuz its their body, why are some drugs illegal? People do it to their own bodies, shouldn't they too be able to do whatever to their own body?......How does biology refute me? A fetus WILL grow to be a human if it is given the chance. I do not doubt that the mother is a REAL person, what I'm saying is they choose to have sex, one result of having sex is creating another being (unless biology refutes that too) the mother chose to have sex, but chooses to avoid the consequence? People shouldn't have sex without knowing the possible consequences. If the mother can not raise the child, there's adoption.
FZ +:
"So is a rock, with a few billion years of gestation time. So is a sperm and an egg. Or an animal. "
When i saw a fetus is a potential human, it is and thats a fact. What you're saying is an exaggeration of what I said. The existance of a rock, will not result in a human. The existance of a fetus, will result in a human. It all goes back to the action: SEX. The act of having sex may result in a fertilized egg, and thus a fetus. When a fetus exists, it will become a human...and sadly a rock will not.
"What is society but what people want? On such a basis, I can define the salvation of every bacteria as "good", and make everybody evil."
I agree, but what i was saying is, when we kill a fetus, we are killing a human. And the reason why we must consider a fetus a human is because when u do draw a line of when life starts it will be different to different cultures. Ancient Rome thought a born baby was inhuman until it was a few weeks old, so they wouldn't think twice before killing the baby if it wasn't a few weeks old. The opinion of what a human is changes, but when u say that life starts with a fetus, you can't go wrong, because one it is dependant on the same necessities as us. Two, a fetus will become a human if given these necessities that again we too rely on. And lastly a fetus looks like a human, it can be distinguished as a human, its cells are becoming more specialized and is becoming a human.
"What if the fetus becomes a new Hitler? "
You're right what if this person becomes a new Hitler? My point was that you simply don't know. You don't know who this fetus will become, and shouldn't deny the fetus a future. Which ever way you look at it, you can't say you know who the person will become, and shouldn't kill it, because who knows WHAT IF the person were to find a cure for a disease. What if the person grows up to have children....you are denying the right to exist. The problem is too many people have sex without thinking of the consequence, and abortion is just an easy way out for these people.
Originally posted by NavidRules
Zero:
No i dont think a women is an incubator.
Well with the idealogy that anybody can do whatever to their body, cuz its their body, why are some drugs illegal? People do it to their own bodies, shouldn't they too be able to do whatever to their own body?......How does biology refute me? A fetus WILL grow to be a human if it is given the chance. I do not doubt that the mother is a REAL person, what I'm saying is they choose to have sex, one result of having sex is creating another being (unless biology refutes that too) the mother chose to have sex, but chooses to avoid the consequence? People shouldn't have sex without knowing the possible consequences. If the mother can not raise the child, there's adoption.
FZ +:
"So is a rock, with a few billion years of gestation time. So is a sperm and an egg. Or an animal. "
When i saw a fetus is a potential human, it is and thats a fact. What you're saying is an exaggeration of what I said. The existance of a rock, will not result in a human. The existance of a fetus, will result in a human. It all goes back to the action: SEX. The act of having sex may result in a fertilized egg, and thus a fetus. When a fetus exists, it will become a human...and sadly a rock will not.
"What is society but what people want? On such a basis, I can define the salvation of every bacteria as "good", and make everybody evil."
I agree, but what i was saying is, when we kill a fetus, we are killing a human. And the reason why we must consider a fetus a human is because when u do draw a line of when life starts it will be different to different cultures. Ancient Rome thought a born baby was inhuman until it was a few weeks old, so they wouldn't think twice before killing the baby if it wasn't a few weeks old. The opinion of what a human is changes, but when u say that life starts with a fetus, you can't go wrong, because one it is dependant on the same necessities as us. Two, a fetus will become a human if given these necessities that again we too rely on. And lastly a fetus looks like a human, it can be distinguished as a human, its cells are becoming more specialized and is becoming a human.
"What if the fetus becomes a new Hitler? "
You're right what if this person becomes a new Hitler? My point was that you simply don't know. You don't know who this fetus will become, and shouldn't deny the fetus a future. Which ever way you look at it, you can't say you know who the person will become, and shouldn't kill it, because who knows WHAT IF the person were to find a cure for a disease. What if the person grows up to have children....you are denying the right to exist. The problem is too many people have sex without thinking of the consequence, and abortion is just an easy way out for these people. Here it comes...if people dare to have sex for pleasure and get pregnant, their punishment is a baby...this is what it always boils down to: wanting to control people's sex lives, or punish them for it. All the talk about a fetus is smokescreen. This is why the majority of anti-abortion activists are also anti-birth control, anti-AIDS prevention, anti-sex ed. They couldn't care less about babies...they want to wage a war on those of us with a healthy sexuality which doesn't match their repression.
PsYcHo_FiSh
Sep26-03, 12:37 PM
Abortion is murder. After a brief period a child does indeed begin to form. Why can't people be responsible and not **** without condoms or birth control? For that matter, why can't they just abstain until they get married!
Anyways, have you ever heard of so called 'late term' abortion? Its where the baby has already reached full term (ie if you took it out it would be fully mature) but is still inside the woman when they suck the babies brains out. Yes, they do this.
What's the difference of killing a baby outside the uterus and killing one inside a uterus?
My opinion, everyone should take responsibility. If everyone did that, this society would be better.
Originally posted by PsYcHo_FiSh
Abortion is murder. After a brief period a child does indeed begin to form. Why can't people be responsible and not **** without condoms or birth control? For that matter, why can't they just abstain until they get married!
Anyways, have you ever heard of so called 'late term' abortion? Its where the baby has already reached full term (ie if you took it out it would be fully mature) but is still inside the woman when they suck the babies brains out. Yes, they do this.
What's the difference of killing a baby outside the uterus and killing one inside a uterus?
My opinion, everyone should take responsibility. If everyone did that, this society would be better. That's your opinion...and you are welcome to it. Medically speaking, though, it doesn't carry much weight...
And, of course, you are another who wants to force your 'morality' on others...
The existance of a rock, will not result in a human.
Yes it will. Give it time.
The existance of a fetus, will result in a human.
No it won't. It requires months of nutrients taken from the mother's body, continual warm temperatures, feeding of oxygen through the placenta... etc etc. A fetus can only become a human in very special circumstances, which the mother provides. It requires an active participation, just as the act of fertilisation is an active participation and so on. The act of sex is not special at all from this criteria.
because one it is dependant on the same necessities as us
No it is not. We do not need a placenta. We do not need anyone to breathe for us. In this respect, a dog is more like us than a fetus.
Two, a fetus will become a human if given these necessities that again we too rely on.
Like a big mac?
And lastly a fetus looks like a human, it can be distinguished as a human
A corpse looks like a human, and can be distinguished as a human. But it does not act like a human - and neither does a fetus. A fetus acts like a fetus.
Which ever way you look at it, you can't say you know who the person will become, and shouldn't kill it, because who knows WHAT IF the person were to find a cure for a disease.
But you can't argue like this from the basis we just don't know. Because we don't know, we cannot ignore the possibility of the human result becoming harmful. Because we don't know, we can only look at the fetus as a neutral entity, whose future is not set. It makes no sense to talk about what the fetus may do - since it may not do so. We do not know the future, and we cannot block out the possibility of darkness. This sense makes no use.
PsYcHo_FiSh:
If everyone did that, this society would be better.
No it does not, as history has repeatedly shown. An attitude of "we know better", of hiding and driving underground, of patronising and scaremongering, can only lead to oppression and terror.
vBulletin® v3.8.7, Copyright ©2000-2012, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.