Addressing the Ethical Debate: The Status of Abortion as Murder

[plus]

Is abortion murder or not?
I think that it is because they are alive and they are humans. I have never heard any argument to discount the above statements. Even if you do not believe them then there has to be some probability that they are true, and if they are then it is murder.
If these playboys and slags want to sleep around then they should be aware of their actions, and not be able to reverse the consequences just because they created a human being.

(I wonder how long it will take for this thread to be locked)

People who are opposed to abortion should not take the attitude that it is everyones choice. Because the rights of the unborn should be respected, and they should be protected from their mothers. Note that in western society it is seen as ok to kill an unborn baby, but in asia it is ok to murder a newborn baby girl. These societal beliefs should be stopped and made illegal.

 

[selfAdjoint]

If these playboys and slags want to sleep around then they should be aware of their actions, and not be able to reverse the consequences just because they created a human being.

(I wonder how long it will take for this thread to be locked)

There would be no reason to lock it if you hadn't included this stereotype sludge. Your first and last paragraphs raise a legitimate phiosophical issue.

 

[Gokul43201]

I think that it is because they are alive and they are humans. I have never heard any argument to discount the above statements.

At what stage of development do you say that a bunch of differentiated tissue is a human ?

And while I recognize that it would be fruitless to attempt a civilized discussion with you, let me ask you the following question. If a couple has a genetic disorder that is likely to be passed on to offspring, should they (or should they not) be forbidden from reproducing ? If they have a child despite the knowledge and the baby inherits this crippling disorder, should the couple be tried for deliberately inflicting suffering on a third person ?

The debate is harder than you make it out to be. But then, that's your style.

 

[BH20]

The debate is a complex one but how I look at it, I believe it is murder. Murder seems to be too strong of a word but it is a termination of potential life. I just do not believe that we should stop a natural process from happening. I don't care how far it is into the process, that's beside the point really. The point is that it has began and if you allow it to develop it will become a human being.

Whether you believe in god or not is beside the point too. Every person is made different, and it should not be up to us what we allow to live in this world and what we don't allow. Would having a child that was disabled be difficult? without a doubt...regardless, they are your child and its only fair that they are given a shot to live. If they are meant to die, human nature will take its course and they will.

The problem in our society is that we don't like to deal with reality. In every sense we like to make things better for ourselve and we forget what is right.
We are at a point where many teenagers use abortion as birth control and that is just not right either.

There is a fine line in everything, but the line I have always drawn is that while I can understand and respect a lot of things people do, its only to the point where it affects them, if it affects someone else, then it has crossed the line.

 

[Dooga Blackrazor]

I would say abortion is murder; however, I support the pro-choice philosophy. A fetus is not in the position to contribute to society within its mother's womb; therefore, it has no value to society.

 

[Kerrie]

i think abortion becomes murder when a mother has carried a child to her 3rd trimester...it is at this point the baby can live on their own, although may have slowed mentality and underdeveloped lungs among other things...

as for aborting in the first trimester, if the child is unwanted, cannot be supported well, or has genetic problems, i am all for it. women who use abortion as a means of birth control will find out later in life if and when they do want to conceive that they will have some serious problems in carrying a pregnancy.

 

[loseyourname]

There would be no reason to lock it if you hadn't included this stereotype sludge. Your first and last paragraphs raise a legitimate phiosophical issue.

Note: Philosophical issue. Unless we're going to discuss the social ramifications of abortion, why is this in social sciences? Sounds like an ethical argument is being made.

 

[selfAdjoint]

And so each of us draws the line according to his or her own opinion. I don't believe there is any way to reach a consensus on abortion. I agree with loseyourname that this thread belongs in the Value Theory forum.

 

[plus]

I agree now that the value theory forum is the best fit for this topic.

At what stage of development do you say that a bunch of differentiated tissue is a human ?

After conception.

If a couple has a genetic disorder that is likely to be passed on to offspring, should they (or should they not) be forbidden from reproducing ? If they have a child despite the knowledge and the baby inherits this crippling disorder, should the couple be tried for deliberately inflicting suffering on a third person ?

If there is a child/adult who is disabled, should they be killed? I say not, although they would be a drain on society. The real debate you are raising is whether certain people should be disallowed from reproducing or not.

The debate is harder than you make it out to be. But then, that's your style.

Do not insult me.

 

[plus]

i think abortion becomes murder when a mother has carried a child to her 3rd trimester...it is at this point the baby can live on their own, although may have slowed mentality and underdeveloped lungs among other things...

Before this stage, the womb is essential for survival. But equally, for adults oxygen is essential for survival. If we are flying in a plane, should we be killed because we could not survive outside the plane? Or should the pilot have the choice to kill us.

as for aborting in the first trimester, if the child is unwanted, cannot be supported well, or has genetic problems, i am all for it. women who use abortion as a means of birth control will find out later in life if and when they do want to conceive that they will have some serious problems in carrying a pregnancy.

So just because the timing is inconvenient, you should have the right to kill. Women who use abortion as birth control may or may not regret it later, but they serve no penal sentance and this does not help the people who were killed.

Do you believe that it is ok to kill the baby girls in asia, because they could not survive without their parents, or any adults to support them?

 

[plus]

I would say abortion is murder; however, I support the pro-choice philosophy. A fetus is not in the position to contribute to society within its mother's womb; therefore, it has no value to society.

This does not make any sense. Why should a murderer have the right to kill others?

 

[russ_watters]

Before this stage, the womb is essential for survival. But equally, for adults oxygen is essential for survival. If we are flying in a plane, should we be killed because we could not survive outside the plane? Or should the pilot have the choice to kill us.

A plane is outside of the normal human habitat, thus the analogy doesn't work.

Do you believe that it is ok to kill the baby girls in asia, because they could not survive without their parents, or any adults to support them?

Not a valid analogy.

If there is a child/adult who is disabled, should they be killed? I say not, although they would be a drain on society.

There are two cases where it is done: people who are brain dead with no hope of recovery often have life support terminated, and people who choose it either through a living will or assisted suicide. In both of these cases, I think it is moral.

After conception.

There is an inconsistent standard applied here by many religions: If a fetus is a full-human with a soul, then birth should not be a factor: why does entry into heaven require baptism after birth (why not have a ceremony where you baptise the woman's stomach?)? Why don't people have funerals for month-old fetuses? [legally] Why do we have "birth certificates" and not "conception certificates"?

It is my understanding that a significant fraction of fertilized eggs never implant into the uterus (can a biologist confirm this please?) or are otherwise lost (menstration doesn't stop?) within weeks of conception. Doesn't this pose a problem for the life-starts-at-conception view?

 

[anti_crank]

I think that it is because they are alive...

So are bacteria, yet your immune system destroys millions in a given day. And it's a good thing that it does so, otherwise you wouldn't last the day. Nonetheless, I'll allow that you don't mean that

... and they are humans.

Be that as they may. Genetically, they're always human. But I'd like you to make an argument as to why we shouldn't kill humans. That's not to say that I support indiscriminate killing, but there have to be good ethical reasons for it - and then we will see whether they apply to the problem at hand. Keep in mind too that there are plenty of circumstances in which most people would approve of killing humans, such as self-defense.

If these playboys and slags want to sleep around then they should be aware of their actions, and not be able to reverse the consequences just because they created a human being.

Again this needs some sort of support.

People who are opposed to abortion should not take the attitude that it is everyones choice.

You need worry nothing in this regard. People who are opposed to abortion are very active in trying to get their views shoved down everyone's throat, and use every means at their disposal, which includes some very underhanded tactics, to pursue that.

Because the rights of the unborn should be respected, and they should be protected from their mothers.

And the mothers shouldn't be protected from the babies? How would you like it to have something you don't want leeching off your very existence, whether you created it or not, and affecting you negatively in any number of ways in the process?

Note that in western society it is seen as ok to kill an unborn baby, but in asia it is ok to murder a newborn baby girl.

Cultures differ. I don't like the idea of choosing boys over girls (it is unsound in any number of ways), but change is hard for old cultures. China has outlawed selective abortion, yet we all know the legal systems can be ahead of times compared to the rest of society. The only effective solution to this problem is education. This costs money, always takes at least one generation to complete, and in the case of China is not helped by the distrust of people in their government. If you have any good ideas, I'm sure the government of China will listen.

These societal beliefs should be stopped and made illegal.

Uh huh. Surely you can give a reason other than your own personal opinion?
Edit: I just noticed something that gave me pause. I certainly hope that you mean the practices should be made illegal, and not the beliefs
Moving on...

Before this stage, the womb is essential for survival. But equally, for adults oxygen is essential for survival. If we are flying in a plane, should we be killed because we could not survive outside the plane? Or should the pilot have the choice to kill us.

Let's suppose our plane crashes in the desert. You have some water that is your own, do I have any right to demand it from you? Again that's not to argue whether you'd WANT to give me some or not; the question is if you have the right to do otherwise. It is your water, you need it for survival and the rescue teams aren't very punctual, and heck you like living as much as the next man. A twist of fate has landed me in a very bad spot; should you not have the right to say "Tough luck buddy, them's the breaks" and save yourself?

As for whether abortion is murder or not and what of it, a few question pop to mind: how do we define 'murder', how does it differ from the physical action of killing a human, and when is murder unethical?

 

[briton]

Is abortion murder or not?
I think that it is because they are alive and they are humans. I have never heard any argument to discount the above statements. Even if you do not believe them then there has to be some probability that they are true, and if they are then it is murder.
If these playboys and slags want to sleep around then they should be aware of their actions, and not be able to reverse the consequences just because they created a human being.

(I wonder how long it will take for this thread to be locked)

People who are opposed to abortion should not take the attitude that it is everyones choice. Because the rights of the unborn should be respected, and they should be protected from their mothers. Note that in western society it is seen as ok to kill an unborn baby, but in asia it is ok to murder a newborn baby girl. These societal beliefs should be stopped and made illegal.

Well what about if the mother's life is in danger? Should she not be able to abort the feotus in self defence? And what about becoming pregnant after being raped - could you live for nine months, and infact for the rest of your life, knowing how your baby was created?

 

[learningphysics]

And the mothers shouldn't be protected from the babies? How would you like it to have something you don't want leeching off your very existence, whether you created it or not, and affecting you negatively in any number of ways in the process?

I've always found this a bizarre line of argument from pro-choicers. The woman's choices led to the creation of the unborn baby (I'm excluding rape cases). You have two lives in an unpleasant predicament... the first was responsible for getting both into the situation... the second is not... Why is the one that is not responsible for the situation punished for the actions of the first?

This is about responsibility... why do we say parents are responsible for taking care of their children? Why does this responsibility only begin after birth?

 

[Kerrie]

Before this stage, the womb is essential for survival. But equally, for adults oxygen is essential for survival. If we are flying in a plane, should we be killed because we could not survive outside the plane? Or should the pilot have the choice to kill us.



So just because the timing is inconvenient, you should have the right to kill. Women who use abortion as birth control may or may not regret it later, but they serve no penal sentance and this does not help the people who were killed.

Do you believe that it is ok to kill the baby girls in asia, because they could not survive without their parents, or any adults to support them?

i am guessing you are male. and as me being a female, the last thing i want to hear or read from a male is what choices i need to make concerning childbearing, especially from a religious standpoint.

 

[cragwolf]

I consider abortion to be a form of murder (I don't shy from that word) but I fully support the practice, as see lots of advantages to it. As for when it should be legal, I'll let society decide (as long as women have a say in that society). Having said that, I don't think that you should send to jail a woman (and a doctor) who has aborted 1 day past the limit set by society. There should be a gradation of punishment. I also support the right of parents to kill babies (via an injection) with very severe physical and mental deformities who are already dying slowly and painfully by dehydration or infection.

 

[anti_crank]

I've always found this a bizarre line of argument from pro-choicers. The woman's choices led to the creation of the unborn baby (I'm excluding rape cases). You have two lives in an unpleasant predicament... the first was responsible for getting both into the situation... the second is not... Why is the one that is not responsible for the situation punished for the actions of the first?

Since we want to explore this point properly, I'll also exclude pregnancies that directly endanger the mother's life. Consequence of a choice is not the same as intent; in fact it is safe to assume the opposite in this case - the woman was intending NOT to become pregnant. In some instances the mother may accept the accidental pregnancy and in others she may not - this is a willing decision by the mother. Would it satisfy you if the baby could be removed from the womb, matured in an artificial life support system and sent to an orphanage thereafter?

This is about responsibility... why do we say parents are responsible for taking care of their children? Why does this responsibility only begin after birth?

In this instance, responsibility only happens if it is willingly assumed. Parents need not be responsible for raising their children. This is simply the way it's always been and likely will be, and society has come to make this expectation of parents (though if you read Brave New World by A. Huxley, you'll see that it's not necessary), however there is no fundamental principle that requires them to. Whether one likes it or not, there is no fundamental responsibility for one human to help another in need. That is not be read that most people won't do it, but that they don't HAVE to do it. So, if the mother decides not to support the baby, case closed. (but refer to above) The alternative is to pass laws to force people to be heroes at any opportunity.

 

[the number 42]

Is abortion murder or not?... If these playboys and slags want to sleep around then they should be aware of their actions.

I love it. More, please.

(I wonder how long it will take for this thread to be locked)

Saint Plus, martyr to hysteria. You'll have to try harder, I'm afraid.

 

[learningphysics]

In this instance, responsibility only happens if it is willingly assumed. Parents need not be responsible for raising their children. This is simply the way it's always been and likely will be, and society has come to make this expectation of parents (though if you read Brave New World by A. Huxley, you'll see that it's not necessary), however there is no fundamental principle that requires them to. Whether one likes it or not, there is no fundamental responsibility for one human to help another in need. That is not be read that most people won't do it, but that they don't HAVE to do it. So, if the mother decides not to support the baby, case closed. (but refer to above) The alternative is to pass laws to force people to be heroes at any opportunity.

Hmmm.. let me get this straight. If a baby is born, it can be ethically abandoned and left to starve, since no human being has any responsibility towards another?

What is your ethical position exactly? Give me an example of a case where someone HAS to do something.

 

[learningphysics]

Since we want to explore this point properly, I'll also exclude pregnancies that directly endanger the mother's life. Consequence of a choice is not the same as intent; in fact it is safe to assume the opposite in this case - the woman was intending NOT to become pregnant. In some instances the mother may accept the accidental pregnancy and in others she may not - this is a willing decision by the mother.

Well, a risk was knowingly taken. She knew pregnancy was possible. If she thought her contraception was full proof, then perhaps the state should take care of the child since the woman didn't receive the proper education.

Why SHOULD it be a willing decision by the mother?

Would it satisfy you if the baby could be removed from the womb, matured in an artificial life support system and sent to an orphanage thereafter?

If we value human life, then of course, yes this is better. If not, then killing of inconvenient adults should be acceptable too.

 

[Zlex]

I think that is partly atavistic genetic wiring; survival of the herd/tribe. A threat by any individual ,or in this case, merely potential individual, to the survival...well being...comfort...life style...and finally, convenience of the tribe 'as a whole' must be dealt with. After all, the tribe is all.

The concept 'individual rights' is a very recent one in the history of the species, and the ancient wiring remains; the herd/tribe must survive at all costs, even if it is necessary to sacrifice a few individuals to make that happen. Sometimes, the 'need' to make that happen is based on implementation of the pet theories of an elitist few, not unlike the tribal voodoo priests of time past. No matter; the morality of that concept applied in any given situation is not relevant to determining the outcome, because the mob/tribe/herd is the de facto strongest of the Jungle's strong, when compared against any individual. When the tribal elders/voodoo priests get their hands on the tribe's Magic Stick--the Talisman that grants them power to speak for the needs of the tribe--the urge to wield that power must be enormous. It is the brute power of Marx's eminent domain that allows the tribe to do what it will, not any moral code. It is the ultimate might makes right; the ultimate will of the Jungle's Strong--the mob/tribe-- over the Jungle's Weak--any one of us.

It is only with the advent of modern civilization that attempts have been made to place reasonable limits on that always irresistable brute force. America and its constitutionally limited democratic republic is one of the latest, modern experiments pulling man from the jungle and declaring that in this tribe, we join together to defend the concept that the power of the tribe, although great, is not absolute. An idea very unlike the totalitarian extremes of scientific statism that have lurched across the rest of the world in the last century.

An idea so great that, it has left a long trail of individuals willing to sacrifice all to defend a tribe dedicated to that idea, so that it might exist somewhere on Earth. When you examine the true meaning of freedom, you find that it means freedom from the absolute dominance of the Jungle's tribe.

So, if I really believe that, then how can I possibly argue against 'free' Choice? Because, respect for individual rights must begin with respect for individual life. A modern tribe that does not defend the quintessential innocent individual life is well on its way back into the Jungle. The 'conflict' of rights in this instance is not one initiated by the weakest member in this conflict.

Any tribe, including a modern one, can enforce its will in any way it chooses; it is the ultimate irresistable force. And yet, I cannot bring myself to argue that our tribal government should use that force to ban abortion. I am encouraged, however, when our tribal elders/leaders use their voices and their positions to educate and press the case for life, so that more of the tribe can evolve out of the Jungle on its own.

 

[Justinius]

I also see abortion as murder. I didn't notice whether or not this idea was covered in this thread but I am going to re-cover it if it already has been.

When is a human being formed? It should be a matter of potency and act. When a male and female have sexual intercourse, there is the potential for a baby to be formed. When the sperm is ejaculated into the woman, all of them have the potential to reach the ovum, and fertilize it. Only one will actualize this potential and fertilize this ovum. At conception, a human being is actualized, or formed, if you will. To terminate the pregnancy any time after conception, is murder.

A human baby can then be defined as "the act of conception," which would give the government/society as a whole no choice but to legally ban abortions, because they would be murder.

A perfect example of this was in the Canadian news recently. A man murdered a pregnant woman and was charged with her murder, and the murder of her unborn child. But, get this: in Canada, we have the most lenient abortion laws in comparison with many other countries. Go figure.

If we value human life, then of course, yes this is better. If not, then killing of inconvenient adults should be acceptable too.

This makes logical sense. If we can kill unborn babies because we "didn't mean to get pregnant," then what's wrong with killing adults or seniors who are inconvenient to us?

 

[derekmohammed]

I guess we could look at this from this stance.

While the baby is in the womb of it mother it is attached to the mother through the imbelical cord. It is therefore a part of its mother, the same as the mother has arms, legs and fingers she also has an unborn fetus attached to her. If she wants to loose a piece of her it is her choice. I can not stop someone from cutting there hair or amputating diffrent parts of there body, it is the mothers choice if she wants to keep this diposable part of her body or not.
Could we call cutting hair and finger nails murder? Since this too, is the act of disposing unwanted parts of your body; is it not?

One must remember that the fetus growing inside the mother belongs to one person and that is the person caring the child. Until the child/fetus is physically removed from the carrier, the fetus belongs to the mother and what she does with it is her choice.

 

[learningphysics]

I guess we could look at this from this stance.

While the baby is in the womb of it mother it is attached to the mother through the imbelical cord. It is therefore a part of its mother, the same as the mother has arms, legs and fingers she also has an unborn fetus attached to her. If she wants to loose a piece of her it is her choice. I can not stop someone from cutting there hair or amputating diffrent parts of there body, it is the mothers choice if she wants to keep this diposable part of her body or not.
Could we call cutting hair and finger nails murder? Since this too, is the act of disposing unwanted parts of your body; is it not?

One must remember that the fetus growing inside the mother belongs to one person and that is the person caring the child. Until the child/fetus is physically removed from the carrier, the fetus belongs to the mother and what she does with it is her choice.

Ok here's a thought experiment. We have a scientist who's engaging in risky experiments that could affect the safety of others. He's warned by everyone in the community of the risks... As a result of one of his experiments, he becomes conjoined/attached to another person (this other person did not willingly participate in this experiment, his involvement is an accident). The other loses almost all his bodily functions, and is dependent on the scientist's body to survive... Fortunately his functions are regenerating, and within 9 months he'll be able to survive independently of the scientist... But the scientist refuses to deal with the 9 months of suffering... and decides to cut loose the other person. Is this morally acceptable?

 

[anti_crank]

Hmmm.. let me get this straight. If a baby is born, it can be ethically abandoned and left to starve, since no human being has any responsibility towards another?

No it cannot. Once the parents accept the responsibility of becoming parents, which assumption happens at birth, they can no longer discard that responsibility, only pass it onto some other entity. This is called the parent-chilld contract. However, I personally have no responsibility to raise an abandoned baby - only to take it to an orphanage.

What is your ethical position exactly? Give me an example of a case where someone HAS to do something.

One has to act in such a way as to not harm others directly, and exercise reasonable care not to harm others indirectly. The latter category restrains actions like throwing stones off a highway bridge in full awareness that they can seriously damage cars below.

Here's a thought experiment...

The scientist is obligated to support the person, but the analogy fails. The other was originally capable of sustaining his own bodily functions, and the scientist robbed him of that ability. More importantly, the other EXISTED before the experiment, and already had a life of his own.

Why SHOULD it be a willing decision by the mother?

Because she can control what happens to her body, that's why, and it is impossible to enforce the opposite unless you take the mother into a hospital-prison until she delivers her baby. Otherwise, she might engage into any number of activities that are unsafe for the baby: smoking, drinking, sky-diving, etc.

This makes logical sense. If we can kill unborn babies because we "didn't mean to get pregnant," then what's wrong with killing adults or seniors who are inconvenient to us?

There are two different contracts at work here:
1) the society-individual contract: the SOCIETY as a whole is responsible for safeguarding the lives and rights of each individual that it admits as members. This contract is indefinite and cannot be terminated when an individual becomes an inconvenience, but parts of it can be invalidated by an individual's criminal behavior. Thus society is responsible for caring for orphaned children, disabled elderly and the like, if the family is unable or unwilling.
2) the individual-individual contract: INDIVIDUALS are required not to harm each other, but they are not required to go out of their way to help each other.

How does one enter a society? By being born into it, naturalization, or other accepted means, NOT by conception. (Just try to get a passport for an unborn child). Upon birth, the baby is admitted into society and its life is protected against arbitrary interference until he dies.

 

[learningphysics]

No it cannot. Once the parents accept the responsibility of becoming parents, which assumption happens at birth, they can no longer discard that responsibility, only pass it onto some other entity. This is called the parent-chilld contract. However, I personally have no responsibility to raise an abandoned baby - only to take it to an orphanage.
One has to act in such a way as to not harm others directly, and exercise reasonable care not to harm others indirectly. The latter category restrains actions like throwing stones off a highway bridge in full awareness that they can seriously damage cars below.
The scientist is obligated to support the person, but the analogy fails. The other was originally capable of sustaining his own bodily functions, and the scientist robbed him of that ability. More importantly, the other EXISTED before the experiment, and already had a life of his own.

Because she can control what happens to her body, that's why, and it is impossible to enforce the opposite unless you take the mother into a hospital-prison until she delivers her baby. Otherwise, she might engage into any number of activities that are unsafe for the baby: smoking, drinking, sky-diving, etc.

Well, you've already shown that it isn't impossible to enforce.

There are two different contracts at work here:
1) the society-individual contract: the SOCIETY as a whole is responsible for safeguarding the lives and rights of each individual that it admits as members. This contract is indefinite and cannot be terminated when an individual becomes an inconvenience, but parts of it can be invalidated by an individual's criminal behavior. Thus society is responsible for caring for orphaned children, disabled elderly and the like, if the family is unable or unwilling.
2) the individual-individual contract: INDIVIDUALS are required not to harm each other, but they are not required to go out of their way to help each other.

How does one enter a society? By being born into it, naturalization, or other accepted means, NOT by conception. (Just try to get a passport for an unborn child). Upon birth, the baby is admitted into society and its life is protected against arbitrary interference until he dies.

Ok, you've mentioned how one enters a society... But we're not discussing how things are, but how things SHOULD be.

Why does the parent child contract begin at birth, or rather why SHOULD the parent-child contract begin at birth? Would it be acceptable to kill the unborn child five minutes before birth? (I know this doesn't happen in the real world, but just as a hypothetical).

 

[Kerrie]

Quote:
Why SHOULD it be a willing decision by the mother?

Because she can control what happens to her body, that's why, and it is impossible to enforce the opposite unless you take the mother into a hospital-prison until she delivers her baby. Otherwise, she might engage into any number of activities that are unsafe for the baby: smoking, drinking, sky-diving, etc.

Anti-crank brings up an excellent point here. Also, if abortion was now outlawed after having been legal for so many years, there will be many underground doctors performing illegal abortions that are unsafe and could ultimately kill a woman. Whose life is more valuable at that point?

And I ask again:

WHERE ARE THE WOMEN IN THIS DISCUSSION? I find it ridiculous that men have so much to say on this topic.

 

[Zlex]

Quote:
Why SHOULD it be a willing decision by the mother?

Because she can control what happens to her body, that's why, and it is impossible to enforce the opposite unless you take the mother into a hospital-prison until she delivers her baby. Otherwise, she might engage into any number of activities that are unsafe for the baby: smoking, drinking, sky-diving, etc.

Anti-crank brings up an excellent point here. Also, if abortion was now outlawed after having been legal for so many years, there will be many underground doctors performing illegal abortions that are unsafe and could ultimately kill a woman. Whose life is more valuable at that point?

And I ask again:

WHERE ARE THE WOMEN IN THIS DISCUSSION? I find it ridiculous that men have so much to say on this topic.

Legal, illegal is not the point here.

That view takes 'morality' out of the equation, when looking at other species. But, not ours, or, so we'd like to think.

Coldly, devoid of morality, this species could survive long term if it selectively practiced abortion; abortion is no obvious threat to the species as a whole.

Ditto, selective murder, or the experiments that Hitler imagined to build what he thought was a better species.

Ditto, selective dumping of garbage or nuclear waste.

The more I examine the contradiction between 'survival of future generations' and 'survival of this instance of a future generation,' the more it looks like simply the mob vs. the individual.

The tribe must survive; species, uber alles. So, the justification to snuff any particular strand of already unwinding DNA can be based on mere convenience without impacting the survival of the tribe.

An invitation to life, withdrawn. Sorry, two adults invited you to launch your DNA process, and you did, but they checked their DayTimers and your arrival is not convenient. So why would we treat 'accidental life' with any less gravity then 'accidental death?'

I don't think OneSIzeFitsAll in regards to accidental life.

What about in the case of rape/incest? Clearly, NOT a mutual invitation. An accidental/unintended life that could very well result in a deliberate death, and the perpetrator(not the victim)should bear the responsibility for that deliberate death, in that case. However, such a decision to abort should only be made by the mother, no one else.

What about in the case of threat to life to the mother? Clearly, an unintended conflict, and better to live to raise another child then to surely die through no fault of your own. Such a decision should be made by the mother, no one else.

What about in the case of 'imperfect' life? I am the cousin of someone who could be easily genetically classifed as imperfect; he is actually missing DNA, up to 50,000 pairs in his Elastin gene. Almost 3 years ago, my family, together, in agreement, went gunning for him, but we and the technology of the time missed him. He got through our littel CVS gauntlet, and made it to Nature's Table, in spite of our best efforts and intentions. We only accidentally didn't murder him, and here he is, imperfections and all. Today, the FISH test for Williams Syndrome deletion exists, and we could catch him. Imperfect or not, he did not miscarry, and in many ways, is healthy as an ox. However, I could never bring myslef to try and convince someone else to bear what they feared to be a too great burden, and I could certainly never convince myself to encourage the guns of government to to aim in that direction. What I could do is simply introduce folks to my little cousin, who was only accidentally not murdered, and let them see what they could be flushing down the sink. Yes, that is because he is 'here' now, and of course I love him to pieces, but what is crystal clear to me is that, the only thing which allowed us to pretend that he was not going to someday be exactly who is now was my convenient temporal bias way back then. The only difference between him then and him now is time and inevitablity, nothing else.

Then, what about merely 'inconvenient' life? Abortion as birth control, in support of a lifestyle. This is disgusting, inhuman, and dispicable. There is no level on which I could respect such a decision, by anybody. That 'inconvenient' life is in conflict with the precious lifestyle of folks who explicitely invited its arrival through their direct actions. They are responsible for the 'conflict,' nobody else. The fact is, if abortions of mere convenience were outlawed, then that unfair burden would not so readily be taken on, as if the act of invitation had no more consequences then the shaking of hands. I could sleep like a baby in a nation that directed the guns of government to outlaw abortions of mere convenience, as well as the unfair burden of consequences from living in a society where the responsibility of inviting life to Nature's Table is taken so lightly.

 

[Hurkyl]

I find it ridiculous that men have so much to say on this topic.

Then, you should spend time rethinking your position. Frankly, I find it ridiculous when women try to shut men out of this. It's like a poor drug addict saying that middle class America has no right telling them that stealing is wrong.


But that aside, I find your position most appalling because you flatly ignore a core issue of the topic -- when does it cease to be a "part of the mother's body" and becomes something more.

Refusing to recognize this issue doesn't make it go away, no matter how much you would like it to do so.

 

[Alkatran]

Killing a fetus compared to killing a baby is as killing a fetus is to menstration/(male)masturbation.

I could easily take the stand that women who allow their period to happen are murderers! Each and every egg has the POTENTIAL to be a real living person! Women who don't sleep around constantly are MURDERING! Also, men should be allowed to take any woman off the street and have his way with her so as not to waste her sperm, which all have the POTENTIAL to be babies!

In fact, men should be required to ensure that each and EVERY sperm gets an egg! Never mind the overwhlem sperm to egg ratio, it will be a fight to the death to see who gets to have the child!


Ahhhh satire.

 

[Zlex]

Killing a fetus compared to killing a baby is as killing a fetus is to menstration/(male)masturbation.

I could easily take the stand that women who allow their period to happen are murderers! Each and every egg has the POTENTIAL to be a real living person! Women who don't sleep around constantly are MURDERING! Also, men should be allowed to take any woman off the street and have his way with her so as not to waste her sperm, which all have the POTENTIAL to be babies!

In fact, men should be required to ensure that each and EVERY sperm gets an egg! Never mind the overwhlem sperm to egg ratio, it will be a fight to the death to see who gets to have the child!


Ahhhh satire.

Neither 'sperm' nor 'egg' are potential members of future generations until explicitely invited by the direct actions of members of group3 to come join the fun.

Besides, they might as well ask kids to shove hubcabs down the front of their pants, the way those cups fit.

Nope; the components 'sperm' and 'egg' and 'Aluminum' and 'Silicon' and 'Carbon' and 'Calcium' and 'Zinc' etc., are all merely required components to materially create animate life, so when your son comes from baseball and runs upstairs alone with the new 'Victoria Secrets' catalog, he's not explicitely risking accidental/wreckless life, or, making any explicit invitations.


It is true that not every nearly potential half of a zygote 'sperm' ever mates with an egg.

It is also true that, with roughly half the population male, and with every single male 'load' consisting of some 3 billion sperm, while a female might only produce a total of maybe 500 eggs in a lifetime, the longshot numbers make this a moot impossibility.

It is true that not every lucky sperm that finds an egg becomes a zygote.

It is true that not every once lucky sperm zygote becomes an embryo.

It is, yes, true that every merely potential member of future generations actually ever becomes a member of the current generation.

It is even true that, not every full term infant lives more than a day, two days, or even 30,000 days.

All of that is true. So, at what point in the midst of all that truth is a merely conceived zygote any _less_ potential then a not even merely conceived member of the generation that will arrive here 20 years from now?

Does that merely not even concieved aggregate of individuals who will be conceived 19 years and 3 months from today have any current rights which the present generation must consider?

This could be resolved simply by making the claim, "Only groups have rights; individuals/instances do not."

This idea of mob rule might yet go over big in America.

You can see the personal calculus being run right now;

"Well, I'm an individual, so I guess that means I have no rights. But, then again, as long as the tribal voodoo priests let me in, I can always claim to be a member of the group, and then reclaim the rights that the annointed few deem I am worthy to hold, as a member of the Holy group."

It goes back to how strong that atavistic herd/tribal gene goes, and how far or near one is yet to the Jungle. You know, where the Jungle's strongest of the strong--the mob/group/tribe, gets to run roughshod over the Jungle's weakest of the weak--any one of us. Eaons ago, for survival. Then...for the slightly more vaporous 'general welfare.' Then...for the even more vague 'well being' of the mob/tribe. Then...'lifestyle.' And fianlly, in the context of the present debate, 'No mere individual--not even, the quintessential weakest of the Jungle's weak---shall threaten the 'convenience' of the Jungle's strong--the mob already enjoying its group rights at Nature's Table.


Not even, if the weak was explicitely invited to take it's longshot seat by the direct, wreckless actions of those in the mob.

So, who is the gatekeeper at the tribal hut who checks for group membership and keeps all those pesky 'individuals' at bay?



Thank you; freedom shown to be defined, once again, as freedom from the tribe.

 

[Alkatran]

Neither 'sperm' nor 'egg' are potential members of future generations until explicitely invited by the direct actions of members of group3 to come join the fun.

Ah yes, but I say by not performing this action they are MURDERERS. If your mother says she's going to knock you out and have an abortion performed on you, are you justified in doing nothing? After all, no direct action of yours will cause the harm!

Good point on the 'conceived' zygote. I didn't even consider women and men were murdering trillions upon trillions upon (depends on how long until humans are whiped out) of people! I shall go outside and begin administering the death penalty. I shall also find myself a lass to relieve my moral obligations.

Come to think of it, people tend to take direct action to NOT have children while taking direct action to have them.

 

[learningphysics]

Killing a fetus compared to killing a baby is as killing a fetus is to menstration/(male)masturbation.

Well, I could say killing killing a baby, compared to killing an adult, is as killing a fetus is to killing a baby.

There are two issues... When does the sperm/egg combination become alive... Second is it acceptable to kill it even if it is alive...

 

[anti_crank]

There's been a lot of points brought up, and I must apologize for not having the time to address them all:

Well, you've already shown that it isn't impossible to enforce

Be that as it may, the method I quoted is a gross violation of rights, and would also necessitate other things such as mandatory monthly examinations of women to check if they are pregnant, etc, etc. I'd sure hate to live in a society like that.

rather why SHOULD the parent-child contract begin at birth? Would it be acceptable to kill the unborn child five minutes before birth?

The willingness to carry out the birth seems to me a good commitment to the child and an indication that the contract was willingly accepted. And it must be willingly accepted; otherwise anyone can be forced into (other kinds of) unwilling contracts for those nine months, and maybe even more.

Would it be acceptable to kill the unborn child five minutes before birth?

I would not like it *personally*, since the baby is capable of surviving on its own at this point and the woman can have it removed without killing it. As far as I am concerned, only one right overrides the unborn's right to life, and that is the mother's right to control her body, from which it follows that she has the right to have it removed by any means necessary; if the unborn's death can be avoided then an effort should be made to do so if society deems it appropiate.

I find it ridiculous that men have so much to say on this topic.

Frankly, I find it ridiculous when women try to shut men out of this...

I've argued that the ultimate decision belongs to the woman, but I'm with Hurkyl on this one insofar as anyone has a right to an opinion on any topic (informed ones preferred), and it does not help the cause to shut men out of the debate, but there's no way to conclude that such an attempt was made here. Women are of course welcome to have their say here; perhaps they're simply unaware of this little discussion, which is no doubt repeated in any number of forums?

when does it cease to be a "part of the mother's body"

Why, at birth, silly.

... and become something more

I believe some explanation is in order before we can tackle this.

when does the sperm/egg combination become alive... Second is it acceptable to kill it even if it is alive...

I've already responded to this, either here or elsewhere.

Apologies again, that's all for now.

 

[Hurkyl]

Killing a fetus compared to killing a baby is as killing a fetus is to menstration/(male)masturbation...Ahhhh satire.

You call it satire, but I call it a good starting point for any serious attempt at reasoning out this issue.

 

[Kerrie]

Then, you should spend time rethinking your position. Frankly, I find it ridiculous when women try to shut men out of this. It's like a poor drug addict saying that middle class America has no right telling them that stealing is wrong.


But that aside, I find your position most appalling because you flatly ignore a core issue of the topic -- when does it cease to be a "part of the mother's body" and becomes something more.

Refusing to recognize this issue doesn't make it go away, no matter how much you would like it to do so.

hurkyl, you missed my entire point...ONLY men seem to take a strong stand on this issue, where are the women and their point of view? the law allows a woman to abort without any sort of interruption during the first trimester for whatever reason...and to address your question-the baby ceases to be a part of the mother at birth. if abortion were illegal during that time she can choose to do crack, drink, smoke etc and not be penalized, thus abortion would have been entirely appropriate during that first trimester. if she is doing this once she has the child, her parental rights are taken away.

and how am i refusing to recognize the issue when i have clearly stated my views on it? simple enough, men telling me how immoral abortion is, is like me (being a female) telling you men how immoral it is to be uncircumsized. when you are able to feel a child grow within your womb, be the one ultimately responsible for the 9 months of gestation, and then most likely be the one raising that child (many men who are not ready to be fathers can't handle parenthood), then you will have a different stand on this, i guarantee it. and yes, i have two children of my own, never ever considered abortion, because it was my choice to carry them and be responsible for them.

 

[Zlex]

hurkyl, you missed my entire point...ONLY men seem to take a strong stand on this issue, where are the women and their point of view? the law allows a woman to abort without any sort of interruption during the first trimester for whatever reason...and to address your question-the baby ceases to be a part of the mother at birth. if abortion were illegal during that time she can choose to do crack, drink, smoke etc and not be penalized, thus abortion would have been entirely appropriate during that first trimester. if she is doing this once she has the child, her parental rights are taken away.

and how am i refusing to recognize the issue when i have clearly stated my views on it? simple enough, men telling me how immoral abortion is, is like me (being a female) telling you men how immoral it is to be uncircumsized. when you are able to feel a child grow within your womb, be the one ultimately responsible for the 9 months of gestation, and then most likely be the one raising that child (many men who are not ready to be fathers can't handle parenthood), then you will have a different stand on this, i guarantee it. and yes, i have two children of my own, never ever considered abortion, because it was my choice to carry them and be responsible for them.

It has been my experience that views on abortion are always personal.

My opionion/personal views on abortion have changed over the years. Here is my basis for my present view, and it is personal, and it is totally based on temporal bias.

My aunt and uncle had their 2nd child a little later in life. So, with full intentions of acting on the knowledge so obtained, my aunt and uncle agreed that my aunt would undergo a CVS procedure early on, to test for genetic defects. My aunts biggest fear her whole life was someday having to 'deal' with what she thought must be the 'heartache' of a special needs child. I'm not sure anybody runs willingly to embrace such a challenge or heartache. Certainly not me.

Then my cousin was born, with Williams Syndrome. A rare genetic deletion. 1:20000 or 1:40000 births, depending on what you read. Low enough on the radar not to be generally tested in a basic CVS screening. So, he was developmentally delayed, and then diagnosed with a life sentence at age 18 months. Bang, sitting in CHOP down in Toronto, and literally, there was this moment when I figuratively watched an axe come down on my cousin's neck, served up by some experts.

Flash ahead in time almost 9 years, my Aunt and Uncle have passed away, and their children lived with my family. My cousins--including Eric--are the absolute joys of my life. Sure, he has health issues. So do we all, when we are stumbling around here for our brief few moments in the Sun. But...and you have to know someone with WIlliams Syndrome to really know what I am saying--this child is the Sun. The ultimate love monkey. Everything else pales in comparison. He can't add to save his life, but what is important, he has tons of. OTOH, he loves words and music and language and most of all, people. Plus, most of the crap that the experts said he would never be able to do, he has already done.

So, I look at him every day, and I'm grateful, and I have to tell myself that we only accidentally didn't murder my cousin, this incredible gift, this lesson. Now, folks can say, well sure, now that some time has passed, and you know and love your cousin, of course you would not murder him, no matter how dinged up his genes are. But, we would have, then, that was the intent, and it was only a then failure of science which prevented us from aborting him; why else do folks have CVS procedures?

So clearly, the difference between not murdering him then and not murdering him now is, a temporal bias; the simple passage of time and inevitablilty. It is only a temporal bias that would have permitted us to abort him then. A temporal bias that would allow us to pretend that Eric was never going to eventually happen. Well, he did eventually happen.

Purposeful or not, Eric was a Hell of a lesson.

Sometimes lessons are too perfect, and you start to wonder. For all I know, this was one of those personal conversations. Or, it still could be that **** just happens. But, that is still amazing.

It is only temporal bias which doesn't allow you to see the life that isn't here, yet. Sometimes that is good, or at least, kind, in that it protects us, for example, all from realizing the full horror of The Holocaust; the future generations of unfolding DNA/life that were in the process of unraveling and mixing and unfolding, and that were all lost.

So, I brought up temporal bias in the context of the abortion debate, and ask why it is we can see and imagine and cherish future generations, but not actual individual members of those future generations.

I see one clearly, every day, who narrowly and only accidentally made it past the gauntlet.

 

[Hurkyl]

Kerrie: First off, I'd like to apologize for projecting the stereotypical arguments onto you. One of my biggest annoyances on the topic is when a pro-choicer starts with the statement "it's my body and I can do what I want to", and then uses that as the basis of the rest of their argument. While you did start with that statement, it wasn't a basis for the arguments in the rest of your post, so I was off base there.


As to genders, maybe your point was to criticize women for not participating, but you sure make it sound like a criticism of men for participating, and your last post does too, so I stand by my objection on that point. Furthermore, if your defense for your position is that "you'd understand if you were pregnant", you can hardly call that a rational position.

 

[Kerrie]

Kerrie: First off, I'd like to apologize for projecting the stereotypical arguments onto you. One of my biggest annoyances on the topic is when a pro-choicer starts with the statement "it's my body and I can do what I want to", and then uses that as the basis of the rest of their argument. While you did start with that statement, it wasn't a basis for the arguments in the rest of your post, so I was off base there.


As to genders, maybe your point was to criticize women for not participating, but you sure make it sound like a criticism of men for participating, and your last post does too, so I stand by my objection on that point. Furthermore, if your defense for your position is that "you'd understand if you were pregnant", you can hardly call that a rational position.

no, i certainly don't have the "it's my body, i can do what I want with it". hurkly, i assume you are male, and if you are, you have never and will never feel the presense of a child grow within you, nor will you experience the changes your body goes through, nor will you experience the pain of childbirth. these experiences can have a profound sway in what you believe in because they are LIFE ALTERING. so, yes, it is rational. men seem to take a very strong opinion on abortion when it does not affect them unless it is their own child being aborted. like i said before, i have no right in telling you that it is immoral to be uncircumsized any more then you have a right to tell me that abortion is immoral within the first trimester.

i will say, that i have a problem with a woman who chooses to carry her child, and yet chooses to not take care of herself. once she has decided to carry that baby to term, she has an obligation to herself and baby to not drink, smoke, etc. i took better care of myself while pregant then i did not being pregnant because i chose the responsibility.

Zlex~i have an 11 year old Down's Syndrome brother that now has both his parents divorced, who has severe autism, cannot use a toilet and will need care for the rest of his life. his main parent is constanly drained and has a difficult time providing the best care possible because of the lack of support. your situation is not typical of everyone because it is your experience.

 

[Zlex]

your situation is not typical of everyone because it is your experience.

Kerrie, Well, thank you, I think that's what I said.

But, something tells me, my argument might only look clear and logical and thought provoking to those who agree with it.

For others, I'm sure it is nonsense.

Though...I haven't heard it explained to me why, yet. I suspect the argument will be that is is somehow possible to support the idea 'in general' about the rights of future generations, as long as we don't uncomfortably reference any actual instance of that theoretical future generation and ask why suddenly an actual member of the future generation does not even have the right to simply ever exist, much less, view humpback whales in their native glory from a pristine beachline unsullied by oil derricks. Apparently, we must 'preserve' our resources for merely potential future generations, and that makes great sense, even though no actual instance of that merely potential future generation, once explicitely invited to sit at Nature's Table for a short visit, has even the right to exist. The whole in this case is somehow greater than the sum of its parts; an infinite series of "No rights + No rights + No rights, not even to exist + ..." somehow equates, on the whole, to a vast range of 'rights' which the present generation must consider and act to defend.

For example, the right to be free from the bother of a mound of yuk at Yucca Flats ... in 50,000 years.

Quite apparently, the merely potential future generations that will be around 50,000 years from now have 'rights' which the present generation must consider thoroughly.

You see, what is important is not that any single individual from that merely potential future generation has any rights that the mob/tribe will rush to defend, but merely that the mob/tribe as a whole/on the average has rights which the current mob/tribe must consider/defend.

Especially if claiming to do so allows the present mob/tribe to run over some individuals in the process; all the better.

The foundation for dividing up folks on both sides of the barricades is actually quite consistant. The 'only groups have rights' folks clearly go to one side. The 'individuals have rights., too' folks go to the other.

Is this a conflict between the rights of an actual some and the rights of merely potential others? Sure. A conflict brought about via the actions of only one of the parties. And, the bias that allows us to refer to one party as 'actual' and the other as merely 'potential' is called, temporal bias, because the only factor distinguishing one from the other is the natural passage of time and the failure of one to actively terminate the other.

 

[Kerrie]

So, I brought up temporal bias in the context of the abortion debate, and ask why it is we can see and imagine and cherish future generations, but not actual individual members of those future generations

i apologize for not reading your post more closely...at the time of my reply, i was pressed for time...

regarding this point, this is more of an idealistic view instead of realistic...if a mother's future is hardly secure for herself, how can she possibly secure the future of another human life? if she doesn't see herself fit to raise a child, how can she cherish her child the best she can? one may throw in the option of adoption, and this is certainly a valid choice for those women strong enough to endure the growth of another human life within them, feel their movements, feel a bond and then after all that energy, give that baby up. one may say, use birth control, but birth control is not 100%. one may say, abstain from sex. is this realistic? i think not. i am not saying that a woman should automatically choose abortion if she didn't mean to get pregnant...abortion for a woman IS a hard decision that factors in how much a woman can sacrifice herself for being a parent...remember, it is the woman who tends to be the primary care giver, who will rely on a man to pay support, to give support. in a society where the mother is most often the single parent (one who never marries the father anyway), she is the one who is responsible for providing the future of the child first. without that solid secure future, the future generations could be in trouble.

 

[Zlex]

i apologize for not reading your post more closely...at the time of my reply, i was pressed for time...

regarding this point, this is more of an idealistic view instead of realistic...if a mother's future is hardly secure for herself, how can she possibly secure the future of another human life? if she doesn't see herself fit to raise a child, how can she cherish her child the best she can? one may throw in the option of adoption, and this is certainly a valid choice for those women strong enough to endure the growth of another human life within them, feel their movements, feel a bond and then after all that energy, give that baby up. one may say, use birth control, but birth control is not 100%. one may say, abstain from sex. is this realistic? i think not. i am not saying that a woman should automatically choose abortion if she didn't mean to get pregnant...abortion for a woman IS a hard decision that factors in how much a woman can sacrifice herself for being a parent...remember, it is the woman who tends to be the primary care giver, who will rely on a man to pay support, to give support. in a society where the mother is most often the single parent (one who never marries the father anyway), she is the one who is responsible for providing the future of the child first. without that solid secure future, the future generations could be in trouble.

There are reasons for the Jungle's Strong to cancel the invitation to the Jungle's Weak, I suppose. Need those reasons be considered at all, or is 'at the mere convenience of the Strong' a principle worthy of a civilized nation?

How ignorant of the factual hurdles facing sentient life that exist in a Universe clearly made mostly of Hydrogen must one be, in order to consider 'mere convenience' a reason to squash it?

Consider the Holocaust; what makes the Holocaust so geometrically tragic is not just the life that was lost, but the generations of life that were lost. Somewhere in all of those lost strands of DNA could have been ...who knows? The cure for cancer. The leader who was going to bring peace to the M.E... then end of all Holocausts.

Shouldn't we have a higher hurdle than mere 'convenience' to lurch up to the last hurdle in someone elses' longshot race with the improbable with a butcher knife?

The last of those hurdles imight be a gauntlet of current lucky winners holding suction tubes and knives, directed by some current lucky winners who explicitely(if wrecklessly)invited the runner to the race and are now employing the reason 'convenience' to forcefully withdraw the invitation. ie, the Jungle's Strong (two or more gathered together in a cause)ganging up on the Jungle's weak(any lone individual)for the ...and here is where the real core of the current debate is...for any of the following reasons:

1] Survival
2] General Welfare
3] General well being
4] lifestyle
5] convenience

of the Strong.


Despite all the politcal mumbo-jumbo that surrounds these issues there is a fundamental moment of truth waiting to be discovered in these issues, and that truth is hidden in our plain sight. In a Universe made almost entirely of Hydrogen, with precious little coalesced stardust to be found, and precious little of that exhibiting what we call 'life,' does _this_ longshot species value life, or does it take that longshot condition in this Universe for granted?

The cold, logical accounting fact is, only some of that rare coalesced stardust ever became animated, and only a yet smaller, almost infinitesimal fraction of that merely animated coalesced stardust has become self-aware.

In the history of this species, and its only very recent self-awareness, that transition from merely animated to self-aware is still ongoing. This species, as a self-aware example of coalesced stardust, is very young, and still struggling to emerge fully aware from the ooze and figure out who we are in this Universe.

 

[Kerrie]

Consider the Holocaust; what makes the Holocaust so geometrically tragic is not just the life that was lost, but the generations of life that were lost. Somewhere in all of those lost strands of DNA could have been ...who knows? The cure for cancer. The leader who was going to bring peace to the M.E... then end of all Holocausts.

you can also pose the argument that a horrible serial-murderer-to-come could have been killed to in the holocaust...this argument cannot hold up why abortion should be illegal, as it lacks reason and reality in today's world. we can't focus on "what could have been", but need to focus on the here and now. the fact remains, if a woman cannot support a child to the best of her ability and provide that child with everything it deserves, she should have the option of terminating that fetus. if abortion is illegal, she will seek it through means that are unsafe and could kill her. that is the reality of it, and will always remain to be.

 

[Zlex]

you can also pose the argument that a horrible serial-murderer-to-come could have been killed to in the holocaust...this argument cannot hold up why abortion should be illegal, as it lacks reason and reality in today's world. we can't focus on "what could have been", but need to focus on the here and now. the fact remains, if a woman cannot support a child to the best of her ability and provide that child with everything it deserves, she should have the option of terminating that fetus. if abortion is illegal, she will seek it through means that are unsafe and could kill her. that is the reality of it, and will always remain to be.

I am not arguing that folks should be compelled to be enlightened humans at the point of a gun.

I am arguing that those that aren't, aren't. Weak? Yes. Frail? Yes. Fearful? yes. Gutless and lacking courage? Yes. Merely human? Yes. Admirable? No. Was my family almost one of them? Yes. Was it simply an accident that we were not, totally contrary to our intentions? Yes.

The total lack of emotion coming from those who have been aborted is simply a small part of an overall silence. It's easy to ignore that silence, because of our temporal bias. We can't hear them now, so they never were going to be. It is just like the silence of the succeeding generations missing after the Holocaust.

On the other hand, we claim to clearly hear future nonexisting and never existed generations calling us and imploring us to save their resources for them, a topic replete with cute, furry emotional seal pups with their big doleful eyes.

Conception is the result of a deliberate act of invitation. The parties who perform the act of invitation hold some responsibility for that deliberate act. I do not recognize, nor can imagine, the concept 'accidental procreation;' I slipped on a banana peel while in an aroused state, happen to make a soft landing in exactly the right location?

Rape/incest? I believe that the victim/mother should have the right to choose, with consequences of deliberate death falling on the perp. Risk to mother's life? A natural conflict, and again, the Mother should have the right to choose.

But, we are quickly onto abortion for mere convenience/to support the precious lifestyle of those that deliberately invited life; abortion as extended birth control. This is disgusting. Checked the DayTimer, had time for the dance, but sorry, not in my 5 year Plan. It is only temporal bias that forbids us from seeing this as exactly what it is; the strong pushing the weak away.

At the same moment of time, a zygote is not a adult human being. Now, imagine for an instant that we actually lived in a universe where time existed; in that Universe, the only difference between a zygote and an adult human being is time and inevitability and the absence of some larger, stronger entity with a knife and a too-full DayTimers.

But your point was, prevoiusly, I think, that reality/biology is unfair in this regard. The guys get physically involved only when it's all fun, and women must shoulder the long term physical consequences/burden after that mutual dance has been completed. You are right, reality/biology is unfair in that regards, there is no mistaking your point.

But, this is MORE reason to support the concept of respect for life, not less. Except in the case of rape/incest, it is via a specific invitation to life, made by two participants in an explicit, specific act of invitation, that results in the burdensome responsibility of bringing forth somebody to Nature's Table. There is no such thing as 'accidental life.' Maybe, inadvertent life; maybe wreckless life, maybe unintended life, but there is certainly no such thing as accidental life. Not even a busted condom qualifies as an excuse to claim 'accidental life.'

Accidental life? Nonsense. What, somebody slipped on a banana peel in an aroused state, and 'accidentally' impregnated someone, who simultaneously had accidentally slipped on a second banana peel and provided a soft landing? Total gibberish/nonsense. People do not accidentally procreate, no matter what their holy intentions were as the outcome that they merely thought they had control over, and actually did not.

 

[Kerrie]

But, we are quickly onto abortion for mere convenience/to support the precious lifestyle of those that deliberately invited life; abortion as extended birth control. This is disgusting. Checked the DayTimer, had time for the dance, but sorry, not in my 5 year Plan. It is only temporal bias that forbids us from seeing this as exactly what it is; the strong pushing the weak away.

But your point was, prevoiusly, I think, that reality/biology is unfair in this regard. The guys get physically involved only when it's all fun, and women must shoulder the long term physical consequences/burden after that mutual dance has been completed. You are right, reality/biology is unfair in that regards, there is no mistaking your point.

why a woman chooses an abortion is no one's business. the question of why begins to interfere with every individual's concept of morality. the supreme court (thankfully) ruled abortion legal for more practical reasons above moral reasons. the fact that a woman risks her life (illegal abortion) over someone else's moral code (pushing the religious limits) is more of a waste then the aborted fetus itself.

perhaps if you were a single young female suddenly pregnant, your views would change.

but, quite honestly, i personally agree that everyone needs to take responsibility for a child they bring into this world unexpectedly-i certainly did and have a beautiful 8 year old daughter. is it my right to tell another young mother-to-be she shouldn't abort for the same reasons i didn't? absolutely not, it's not me who is bearing the responsibility.

 

[Justinius]

why a woman chooses an abortion is no one's business. the question of why begins to interfere with every individual's concept of morality. the supreme court (thankfully) ruled abortion legal for more practical reasons above moral reasons. the fact that a woman risks her life (illegal abortion) over someone else's moral code (pushing the religious limits) is more of a waste then the aborted fetus itself.

Kerrie, a few questions:

Could you please outline the practical reasons you speak of when you speak of the supreme court? A woman risks her life in a clinical abortion just as much as she would in a back-alley abortion. She risks grave damage to her fallopian tubes, hysterectemies, etc.

I think you forget to acknowledge that the aborted fetus itself is a human being. Here, I get the impression that a fetus is a disposable part of a woman's body and has no rights. If the woman knew she did not want a baby she should have thought about that before she had sexual intercourse: the natural product of a sexual relationship is another human being.

perhaps if you were a single young female suddenly pregnant, your views would change.

Lets not use situation ethics or appeals to emotions please. Let's face it, I'm male, I will never carry a baby, however, as I said above, this young female should have thought the cause of this sudden pregnancy through before going through with the act.

We must remember we are talking about a human baby when discussing this topic. Having read many of the posts on this thread, it appears that a few pro-choicers here neglect this.

 

[Dissident Dan]

Kerrie, a few questions:

Could you please outline the practical reasons you speak of when you speak of the supreme court? A woman risks her life in a clinical abortion just as much as she would in a back-alley abortion. She risks grave damage to her fallopian tubes, hysterectemies, etc.

I'm not posting to express an opinion on abortion in this post. But this is just incorrect. How do you figure that a woman takes no more chances jabbing a coat hanger up her uterus than having a trained professional with appropriate equipment in a clean environment? That is absurd.

 

[dekoi]

I'm not posting to express an opinion on abortion in this post. But this is just incorrect. How do you figure that a woman takes no more chances jabbing a coat hanger up her uterus than having a trained professional with appropriate equipment in a clean environment? That is absurd.

I assume Justinius was stating that two women who receive "successful" abortions (one back alley and the other one done professionally) are still at moderately equal risk of being victims to several problems.

Researchers examined the death records for approximately 173,000 low-income California women and discovered that women who had abortions were almost twice as likely to die in the following two years and that the elevated mortality rate of aborting women persisted over at least eight years.

During the eight year period studied, women who aborted had a 154% higher risk of death from suicide, an 82% higher risk of death from accidents and a 44% higher risk of death from natural causes.

How can anyone even argue for abortion? It is completely, utterly absurd. Everything about it shows negative results. Not one single thing can account as a positive affect or product of abortion.
Absolutely ridiculous, and well, quite funny how people try to justify their apathy. Disagree? Shall we have story time? Ok, ill tell this story:

# Salt poisoning – a technique used for 4 months and above. Abortionist injects poison solution into abdomen. Baby breathes poison and convulses until death (which the mother feels). Takes 2 to 3 hours to kill the baby, who is delivered vaginally 24 hours later – sometimes alive.

Prostaglandin abortions. An injection of a strong hormone which causes intense labor, and violent contractions of the womb. One complication – live birth.

Hysterotomy – a mini-caesarian section. Womb is surgically opened. The abortionist cuts the cord, and let's the baby die in a basin, or chokes him/her to death.

And then people tell me that i am a man and can not speak on behalf of abortion; do all lawyers need experience murdering when fighting for murderers? To all of those pregnant women who are looking to abortion as the answer because the baby is of inconvenience in any way, i'll be perfectly blatant with you, "Stop eating potato chips and reading magazines;get off your bum-bum, have the baby, give it up for adoption."

 

[Kerrie]

I'm not posting to express an opinion on abortion in this post. But this is just incorrect. How do you figure that a woman takes no more chances jabbing a coat hanger up her uterus than having a trained professional with appropriate equipment in a clean environment? That is absurd.

exactly dan...abortion clinics have standards and access to necessary medical supplies that are sanitary and SAFE. justinus, would you buy heroin off the street or buy morphine from a pharmacy? the same idea.

think you forget to acknowledge that the aborted fetus itself is a human being.

no, but within a few months it will be. it is entirely dependent upon the female carrying it, from what she eats, how she rests and what she does to her body. that fetus can abort itself during the pregnancy too. miscarriages are quite common.

If the woman knew she did not want a baby she should have thought about that before she had sexual intercourse

don't EVEN throw this out. it takes TWO to create life. this is exactly why abortion needs to remain legal, your attitude is, "if the woman gets pregant, tough ****."

Let's face it, I'm male, I will never carry a baby

absolutely, and after the expression of your "tough ****" attitude, you have no right to dictate what a female can or cannot do.