Addressing the Ethical Debate: The Status of Abortion as Murder

[russ_watters]

excellent point...where are the anti-abortion supporters when it comes to birth control? that is much more widespread then abortion, and many potential lives are being prevented in this manner.

The Catholic Church is against it, but most American Catholics disagree (and disobey) with the Church on this one. Its a real problem though for those who take the religion seriously. And many do, as you are implying, hold mutually exclusive views on the two.

Would you give me a clear example of something 'good' that humans do which goes against our human nature?

Flying (based on AiA's criteria).

edit: AiA's statement's follow-up was (perhaps unintentionally?) broader than the "human nature" thing, and implies anything we do that chimps don't do is "unnatural." However, being against both activist environmentalism and religious fundamentalism, I would argue that everything humans do is natural, seeing as how everything we do is a function of our brain-power, which is a product of our evolution.

So my answer to the religious and "naturalist"(?) argument, "if humans were meant to fly, they'd have wings," is: humans were meant to fly - they have brains!

This is also the root of my objection to religious views on abortion (among other things) - the Catholic Church's views on most things scientific, including abortion, are clouded by misuse, misunderstandings, and clinging to primitive ideas - of science. edit2: And I'd even say (blasphemy!) that that's a misinterpretation of scripture as well - if God didn't mean for us to fly, why did he give us brains?

 

[arildno]

Would you give me a clear example of something 'good' that humans do which goes against our human nature?

1) Hmm..wearing clothes?
2) Eating with knife and fork
3) Practically everything else we do.

 

[plus]

again, the woman is ultimately responsible for that fetus, and roe vs. wade upholds this. reality is, it will never change, women will always continue to abort, thus forcing them to carry a child they are not willing to support is more destructive then the lives of the fetuses. let's be real, not ideal.

We all know what the law is, so stop banging on about Roe vs wade, as we all know what the result was. Society has a duty to have responsibility to the fetus just as it is responsible for providing safety to the born.
The reality is that this discussion is not completely decided by 2 rich lawyers, only the law is.
WOMEN WILL NOT ABORT IN SUCH LARGE NUMBERS IF ABORTION IS ILLEGAL. Nothing could be more destructive than mass murder.

 

[plus]

I don’t share your apparent view on prostitution, though it is in fact legal in more than one area and so far as I have ever seen has not become a ‘majority activity’ in such areas. Do you have any evidence for such a claim?

Yes. Prostitution increases if it is legal.

 

[Kerrie]

We all know what the law is, so stop banging on about Roe vs wade, as we all know what the result was. Society has a duty to have responsibility to the fetus just as it is responsible for providing safety to the born.
The reality is that this discussion is not completely decided by 2 rich lawyers, only the law is.
WOMEN WILL NOT ABORT IN SUCH LARGE NUMBERS IF ABORTION IS ILLEGAL. Nothing could be more destructive than mass murder.

Roe vs Wade is what decided the law, so yes, i will "bang" on about it because fortunately it protects me from your morals-which are not ultimately the right ones (obviously). and yes, you are right the number of SAFE abortions will decrease while the number of UNSAFE abortions will increase. Roe vs. Wade protects women in this instance.

it is your OPINION that society has a due responsibility to the fetus, but it is not REALITY. what makes you think that your opinions should govern other people's privacy? what makes you think your morals are so righteous? what makes you think women will really care what you think when they are dealing with the overwhelming responsibility of raising a child, feeding a child, paying for medicine, and daycare expenses? personally, i think you are arrogant in your views and have no concept of the true reality of these women who have to make this awful choice. i don't know if you are from america, but in america, we all have the right to privacy protected by the 14th amendment:

"1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

fortunately the law protects me and other women from your unrealistic and invasive opinions.

 

[Kerrie]

The Catholic Church is against it, but most American Catholics disagree (and disobey) with the Church on this one. Its a real problem though for those who take the religion seriously.

Russ, please read my comment again above...no where did I mention the term "Catholic", only anti-abortion supporters. My point is, why aren't anti-abortion supporters against birth control in larger numbers? If they are so pro-life, then logically wouldn't that make them against contraception because of the reduced potential for life?

How many anti-abortion participants are female in this discussion? I truly don't understand why men have such a strong opinion of this when this affects women much more greatly. Do men feel perhaps that the species will be threatened? What connection do they personally have to abortion?

 

[russ_watters]

Russ, please read my comment again above...no where did I mention the term "Catholic", only anti-abortion supporters. My point is, why aren't anti-abortion supporters against birth control in larger numbers?

I know - I was highlighting one specific source of such conflict. ie:

If they are so pro-life, then logically wouldn't that make them against contraception because of the reduced potential for life?

That is the position and logic of the Catholic Church. I think some people simply choose to draw the line at conception (yes, I am aware that not all contraception stops conception -- a whole 'nother can of worms). It may be mean, but I think on some political/religious issues, many people are content to accept a simple, if not entirely consistent opinion.

How many anti-abortion participants are female in this discussion? I truly don't understand why men have such a strong opinion of this when this affects women much more greatly. Do men feel perhaps that the species will be threatened? What connection do they personally have to abortion?

No, I think this is just a reflection of the demographics of this BB. But I think the connection men have is obvious: its the sperm! Also though, even if men don't have the right to take a part in the decision, the outcome of the decision includes and affects a responsibility for them. I think because of that shared responsibility for the cause and obligation in the outcome, the male should (but doesn't have to) be consulted in the decision.

 

[BoulderHead]

Yes. Prostitution increases if it is legal.

You have not addressed my question which had to do with your statement;

“The point is that prostitution would increase dramatically if it were legal, turning it from a minority pastime to a majority activity. This was something similar to what Kerry was saying.”

You haven’t even supported the much weaker claim now made with anything other than “yes”. I am not favorably impressed by any of this. Methinks you now commit a similar error to the one made by dekoi (whopping exaggeration) that I originally attacked and again, like dekoi, neither of you have addressed my replies. Would you care to try again?

 

[plus]

You have not addressed my question which had to do with your statement;

“The point is that prostitution would increase dramatically if it were legal, turning it from a minority pastime to a majority activity. This was something similar to what Kerry was saying.”

This is straying from the topic. I am not going to look up prostitution statistics on the internet, but it is true that the number of incidents does go up when legal.

 

[plus]

My point is, why aren't anti-abortion supporters against birth control in larger numbers? If they are so pro-life, then logically wouldn't that make them against contraception because of the reduced potential for life?

Because the potential for life is not alive.

How many anti-abortion participants are female in this discussion? I truly don't understand why men have such a strong opinion of this when this affects women much more greatly. Do men feel perhaps that the species will be threatened? What connection do they personally have to abortion?

I do not feel that the foetus will be threatened. It is the children of men who are being brutally murdered by the abortionists. I would prefer to see my son grow up to be a tall strong young man, and not killed because the timing is inconvenient. I would also not like to be murdered by my mother now because she decides that I am now inconvenient.

Why are you being so sexist in this discussion?

 

[Kerrie]

Why are you being so sexist in this discussion?

i can ask you why are you being so inconsiderate of the mother's feelings? she is the one who goes through the body changes, has to bear a child (believe me it is very painful) and ultimately responsible for the child because so many men will walk away from parenthood and leave that mother a single parent. she will pursue child support, but he may not pay, he may not be involved. this isn't about YOU, this is about the woman and her ultimate burden of responsibility. sure, you might be a responsible father, unfortunately many men left women high and dry which gives a woman incentive to terminate, and she needs to be able to do it safely. now that abortion has been legal for 32 years in America, women who have had the choice will not stop getting abortions whether you feel it is wrong or not.

thank goodness it is not your dogmatic views that rule my body.

 

[Hurkyl]

And I could ask you how you can be so dismissive of the child. And, I could say how it isn't about YOU, but about the defenseless child and its right to live.

 

[Kerrie]

And I could ask you how you can be so dismissive of the child. And, I could say how it isn't about YOU, but about the defenseless child and its right to live.

the child has a right to life once he/she is born, and yes, i have two children of my own i love very much. you try telling this to a woman with no money, no support, 2 months pregnant and unable to provide a solid home once she was to give birth. the abortion law is not about morals of the life of a child, it's about the safety and privacy of a woman who's immediate life is considered by the eyes of the law more important then a 8 week fetus.

thank goodness it is not your dogmatic views that rule my body either.

It is the children of men who are being brutally murdered by the abortionists. I would prefer to see my son grow up to be a tall strong young man, and not killed because the timing is inconvenient. I would also not like to be murdered by my mother now because she decides that I am now inconvenient.

i am guessing then if you had a daughter you wouldn't feel so strongly? don't tell me about being sexist.

 

[Hurkyl]

the child has a right to life once he/she is born

Once there is agreement with this, there is no problem, and I would defend abortions right up until the moment of birth. (At least, unless some other issue pops up)

The problem? There isn't agreement with this. This is my #1 gripe with the majority of pro-choice advocates: they take your statement as an axiom, and refuse to acknowledge any disagreement on this point.

You call others dogmatic -- but you aren't any better.

you try telling this to a woman with no money, no support, 2 months pregnant and unable to provide a solid home once she was to give birth.

I will not accept an emotional argument in support of murder, period.

When a rational argument is presented that destitution is a valid excuse for murder, I'll listen.

the abortion law is not about morals of the life of a child, it's about the safety and privacy of a woman who's immediate life is considered by the eyes of the law more important then a 8 week fetus.

If it's about balancing the safety and privacy of a woman against the life of a fetus, then it most certainly is about the life of the fetus.

On privacy: if the fetus has a right to life, you have to present an argument why the mother's right of privacy is more important than the fetus's right to life.

On safety: if abortion should be illegal when safety is not considered, you have to provide an argument why an illegal act should be made legal in order to protect the safety of those committing that illegal act.

(If giving birth puts the life of the mother at risk, that's a third, separate issue)

thank goodness it is not your dogmatic views that rule my body either.

What views have I presented that are dogmatic? I intend this both as:

(1) a challenge for you to back up your allegation, as I suspect you are making unwarranted assumptions about my position.
(2) self-improvement, as I try to avoid making any assertions I can't back up with reason.

 

[Kerrie]

Once there is agreement with this, there is no problem, and I would defend abortions right up until the moment of birth. (At least, unless some other issue pops up)

The problem? There isn't agreement with this. This is my #1 gripe with the majority of pro-choice advocates: they take your statement as an axiom, and refuse to acknowledge any disagreement on this point.

You call others dogmatic -- but you aren't any better.

think of it this way...if a woman is telling you that circumcision is wrong for moral reasons, you have only a fraction of the feeling a woman understands when men, who have no clue what child bearing is all about, tells her to continue on with a pregnancy she is unfit to deal with.

I will not accept an emotional argument in support of murder, period. When a rational argument is presented that destitution is a valid excuse for murder, I'll listen.

your definition of murder is not consistent with the U.S. laws obviously. abortion is not considered murder in the eyes of the law.

If it's about balancing the safety and privacy of a woman against the life of a fetus, then it most certainly is about the life of the fetus.

On privacy: if the fetus has a right to life, you have to present an argument why the mother's right of privacy is more important than the fetus's right to life.

try reading the U.S. Constitutional Amendment XIV. it guarantees the same privacy for men and women. the term "fetus" is not anywhere in the constitutution. according to the U.S. laws, a fetus is not considered a U.S. citizen, but once it is a child born and breathing, it is considered a U.S. citizen. it is your own opinion that a fetus is a citizen with rights, but it is not consistent with the laws. if you don't like the laws, i suggest writing your congressmen or find a new country to live in.

On safety: if abortion should be illegal when safety is not considered, you have to provide an argument why an illegal act should be made legal in order to protect the safety of those committing that illegal act.

how much of roe vs. wade have you read? have you read anything i have posted these last 3 pages? abortion is only legal because of the safety and privacy of a woman, not because the U.S. laws say it's okay to terminate fetuses. it's about being practical and dealing with reality, many women were becoming severly ill and even risking their lives up until abortion was made legal in 1973. to tell a woman she should keep her baby regardless of her current position is unrealistic. would you rather see teenagers dump a newborn in the dumpster because they didn't know how to deal with it, or perhaps given her the option for abortion before that child came into the world and then die a horrible death?

let me repeat, the U.S. laws for abortion were not based on the morality of the situation...not everyone's idea of morality is consistent nor practical...the laws for abortion were made for realistic and practical reasons. you can scream, kick, yell and preach all you want how horrible it is(and i agree it is a horrible act personally), but those women stuck in a desperate situation are only thinking of what they feel is right for them. this is not my opinion, but a fact that has been proven over and over. millions of women obtain abortions each year, and since abortion has been legal, in my state NOT ONE WOMAN HAS DIED. the judicial law has the perspective of, "she's going to terminate the pregancy one way or another...if it is legal, she will be safe. and under the constitution she has a right to privacy."


my argument is backed up by the laws of the U.S. itself. yours are backed up by your own personal morals, again not always consistent and practical with the rest of the United States citizens.

 

[Hurkyl]

I suspect you are making unwarranted assumptions about my position.

yours are backed up by your own personal morals

Case in point. I haven't even thought of venturing into moral concerns. Thus far, I've mainly been interested in trying to establish that the standing of a fetus is a core topic in the issue of abortion. Frankly, most of the stuff one can say on abortion is irrelevant if the involved parties don't already agree on this core topic.


Just because the law is the way it is doesn't mean that's the way the law should be. For example, wasn't slavery once legal?


Besides, there is already legal precedent for considering the premeditated slaughter of a fetus as murder -- IIRC, in some states a man that kills a mother and her fetus can be charged with two counts of murder.


Furthermore, one does not need to be a US citizen to be protected by US law. I'm pretty sure that I could be convicted as a murderer if I kill, say, an illegal immigrant.

 

[russ_watters]

think of it this way...if a woman is telling you that circumcision is wrong for moral reasons, you have only a fraction of the feeling a woman understands when men, who have no clue what child bearing is all about, tells her to continue on with a pregnancy she is unfit to deal with.

Kerrie, I've been nice about this, but your position on this point (regarding the conception vs birth thing, there is much room for reasonable disagreement) is simply not reasonable and here's why: "a woman" doesn't pay for or have any personal obligation toward a circumcision. I can understand the desire for complete control over your body, but the fact of the matter is, your decisions affect other people and the other people affected should be considered when making decisions. That doesn't just apply to abortion, that applies to every decision that affects others, even ones that involve directly, only your body (such as suicide or getting a tattoo).

Regarding the other thing, both you and Hurkyl have highlighted the main dilema in the issue: proponents of both sides (though, imo, more often the "pro-life" side because of the religious aspect) often consider their position axiomatic.

-Life starts at conception, so abortion is murder.
-Human life (or rights) starts at birth, so the rights are entirely the woman's until that point.

There is, however, a third position, held by a significant fraction of pro choice advocates (ie, me):

-Human life (and rights) start somewhere between conception and birth.

 

[Kerrie]

Kerrie, I've been nice about this,

um, okay i didn't realize you were an authority on the subject.

but your position on this point (regarding the conception vs birth thing, there is much room for reasonable disagreement) is simply not reasonable and here's why: "a woman" doesn't pay for or have any personal obligation toward a circumcision.

she can if she is the mother of the boy being circumsized. but my point was more about the issue of control from another gender regarding sexual health. american law has clearly defined that the woman has control of her body while pregant. i think also society in general would rather see a serious alcoholic female abort her baby rather then drink while pregnant and give birth to a baby with FAS.

I can understand the desire for complete control over your body, but the fact of the matter is, your decisions affect other people and the other people affected should be considered when making decisions. That doesn't just apply to abortion, that applies to every decision that affects others, even ones that involve directly, only your body (such as suicide or getting a tattoo).

please explain how my tattoos affect anyone else? especially if they are hidden all day under my clothing where no one can see them? Russ, i am inclined to think you are joining a band wagon of bias rather then trying to see reason within the american laws. no one has addressed the blatant fact of why abortion is legalized, only addressed me who is just reiterating the law that protects women and their privacy-the same privacy you are entitled to.

 

[Kerrie]

Just because the law is the way it is doesn't mean that's the way the law should be. For example, wasn't slavery once legal? :

you are absolutely right, and it was abolished because of the personal liberties of the individual were the issue-the same basis abortion was legalized in 1973. again, what research have you done on roe vs. wade? abortion was illegal prior to then.

Besides, there is already legal precedent for considering the premeditated slaughter of a fetus as murder -- IIRC, in some states a man that kills a mother and her fetus can be charged with two counts of murder.

yes, and i agree with anyone who kills a fetus-such as an enraged man like Scott Peterson-is infringing upon the mother's rights and liberties to bear her child.

 

[anti_crank]

the child has a right to life once he/she is born

Once there is agreement with this, there is no problem, and I would defend abortions right up until the moment of birth. (At least, unless some other issue pops up)

I cannot speak for others, but I fail to see how a different position can be logically sustained. What sort of argument for abortion rights would you find acceptable?

 

[Hurkyl]

yes, and i agree with anyone who kills a fetus-such as an enraged man like Scott Peterson-is infringing upon the mother's rights and liberties to bear her child.

Let me make sure I clearly understand you:

(1) When someone kills a fetus, you think it appropriate to call it a murder.
(2) When the mother kills a fetus, you think it inappropriate to call it a murder.

I cannot speak for others, but I fail to see how a different position can be logically sustained. What sort of argument for abortion rights would you find acceptable?

I don't understand the question.

 

[Kerrie]

Let me make sure I clearly understand you:

(1) When someone kills a fetus, you think it appropriate to call it a murder.
(2) When the mother kills a fetus, you think it inappropriate to call it a murder.

due to the fact that the U.S. laws have granted the woman a choice in remaining pregnant, it is not considered murder. me personally, i think a woman who chooses to go beyond 4 months of pregnancy and then decide to abort is approaching a fine line. being a mother, and having been pregnant twice, i didn't feel an attachment or movements till around 5 months along. this may be different for other women.

remember hurkyl, you are assuming that life begins at conception and many hold a different opinion of this, especially the U.S. laws. and maybe if you yourself found out that you impregnated a gal you had only known for a few months yet you had the opportunity of your life that would enhance your career, you yourself may be the kind of guy who would sacrifice this wonderful opportunity to be a father. but, you and the gal have a falling out, she gets custody, you are stuck paying child support to a child you see every other weekend at best. of course, you would have a new family member, but had the woman decide to abort, you would have been making more money, gotten more opportunity for advancement, got to travel, etc. the attachment to the child never would have been. these are the kinds of aspects people look at when considering this awful but sometimes necessary choice. so, her decision to keep the child could set you back in your dreams and goals all because the condom broke, or she forgot to take her pill.

now think of her. you and her don't have a long term relationship, she is raising a child mostly alone who doesn't see his or her father daily like a child should, all of you struggle financially. again, perhaps you personally are willing to take responsibility for the situation, i don't doubt that from your responses. but a great majority of men are not like this, putting many women in a bad position. this is where the U.S. laws give them options. the U.S. laws do put the woman first before a 12 week old fetus because again, her needs are more immediate then the fetus. if she can hardly take good care of herself, how can she take care of herself while pregnant, and even worse, take care of a new baby? this is the positive thing about the law, there is a choice. abortion is a choice, a hard choice of course, but still a choice. it falls within the woman's freedoms guaranteed by the U.S. constitution, again because her needs are much more important and immediate then the 12 week old fetus.

 

[loseyourname]

This is from Norah Vincent (it's short, so I'll post the whole thing):

1.9..03
Wrong Focus in Abortion Issue
LA Times, Op. Ed.

On Jan. 22, abortion rights groups will celebrate the 30th anniversary of Roe vs. Wade. Antiabortion groups will memorialize it.

Rhetoric will fly on both sides, all of it aimed at the new Republican-controlled Congress, which Roe supporters see as a grave threat to women's reproductive freedoms and Roe opponents see as their best hope for securing fetal rights.

Of course, the rhetoric will be aimed at you and me too because, in 2004, we will decide whether to reelect President Bush or install the Democratic challenger. Bush is likely to sign into law any bill Congress passes banning partial-birth abortion and to appoint pro-life judges to the Supreme Court; a Democratic president would probably veto such a ban -- as President Clinton did twice -- and appoint pro-choice judges.

For far too long, the abortion debate has been about political advocacy, not ideas. The feminist establishment has made choice a woman's issue. The Christian right has made life a religious issue. Both have made loyalty crucial. If you're pro-woman, you're pro-choice. If you're pro-God, you're pro-life. But this is a false dichotomy. Abortion is not a feminist issue, and it is not a religious issue. It's a libertarian issue that, legally speaking, has nothing to do with women's bodies or God and everything to do with the Constitution.

So let's be clear about the basics. "A woman's right to choose" and "sanctity of life" are misleading phrases used to whip up public outrage and obscure the real issue at hand.

The case for abortion, and the legal basis on which Roe was decided, does not rest on "choice" but on the right to privacy implied, though never explicitly stated, in the 1st, 3rd, 4th and 5th amendments.

The case against abortion does not rest on "life" in the cosmic or biblical sense but on life in the purely legal sense, as set forth explicitly in the 5th and 14th amendments: "Nor shall any person ... be deprived of life, liberty or property, without due process of law."

Thus, despite what the activists want you to think, the real question on abortion is whether the right to privacy or the right to life should prevail. Which comes down to the real choice on abortion: Is the fetus human?

If the fetus isn't human, then getting an abortion is no different from getting a tattoo or a nose job. It's a victimless procedure that is nobody's business and should be legal.

If the fetus is human, then it deserves all the constitutional protections that you and I enjoy, the most important being the right to life.

If a fetus is human, then the logical conclusion is inescapable: Abortion, by definition, is homicide and should be illegal except when, to save her own life, the mother aborts in self-defense.

Fetal humanity is the philosophical hinge on which the abortion debate turns.

The less time since conception, the stronger the case against fetal humanity becomes, which is why pragmatic pro-lifers realize that first-trimester abortions are likely to remain legal in this country even if Roe is overruled.

But the converse is also true. The closer you get to the ninth month, the more irrefutable the case for fetal humanity becomes. That is why pro-choicers are going to have to accept that a ban on late-term procedures like partial-birth abortion is not only an inevitability under the current administration but also a moral imperative.

So maybe a good way to mark this 30th anniversary would be to move the debate from all or nothing -- conception to birth -- to a compromise in which lifers concede the first trimester, choicers concede the third and the rest of us have an intellectual discussion about the middle.

Perhaps this can help give some clarity to the issue.

 

[russ_watters]

um, okay i didn't realize you were an authority on the subject.

I didn't say I was an authority, I just meant I wasn't being very forceful with my opinion. I'm known to do that, you know...

 

[Hurkyl]

due to the fact that the U.S. laws have granted the woman a choice in remaining pregnant, it is not considered murder.

I don't have a legal dictionary at hand, but every definition I can find for the word murder is the "killing of a human being by another human being".

I think you'll agree that this definition of murder cannot apply to one of these situations, but not the other. (Though, if you would care to explain how, I'll listen)


Some of the definitions include the qualification "unlawful". Others instead qualify it with "it is not always a crime". Others don't have anything to say about legality.


However, every definition I could find specifically states that the actor and actee are human beings, or are persons.


Assuming you stick to your response, I conclude that you intend the following:

(1) The fetus is a human being.
(2) Abortion takes the life of a human being.
(3) The definition of murder requires the killing to be unlawful.
(4) The only reason abortion isn't murder is because it is lawful.


Am I correct?

remember hurkyl, you are assuming that life begins at conception and many hold a different opinion of this, especially the U.S. laws.

Am I now? I don't recall making any statement that assumes life begins at conception, except in that parody of your post. I don't think I've even made any statements of the form "If life begins at conception, then <insert conclusion>".

At your suggestion, I started reading up on Roe v Wade, and one thing really stood out: that the justices specifically intended to avoid having an opinion on this. Instead, the decision was based on the lack of legal precedent for ascribing rights to a fetus.

So, I'm now even less convinced that your opinions are backed by U.S. law. (at least some of them)

if you yourself found out that you impregnated a gal

Actually, I have an easy answer for your hypothetical: I practice abstinence.

I would also like to point out that there wouldn't even be a shred of tolerance in any other situation for the taking of a life merely to get ahead in the world.

So, why is there tolerance for the taking of a life in this situation? Because it's legal? But weren't you trying to use this example to convince me why it should be legal? If so, you're wrapping yourself in a circular argument.

Furthermore, your hypothetical was presented as if the man has a choice in the matter. Are you advocating that the man has a right to demand the abortion of this child?

Penultimately, the lynchpin of your hypothetical is that having the baby leads to financial difficulty for all. Unless you meant to imply that abortion should be reserved only for those who aren't well off, that renders the whole thing moot.

And finally, this sounds an awful lot like a threat: that I should support abortion, otherwise bad things will happen to me. Is that really the form of argument you wanted to take?

 

[Kerrie]

I don't have a legal dictionary at hand, but every definition I can find for the word murder is the "killing of a human being by another human being".

I think you'll agree that this definition of murder cannot apply to one of these situations, but not the other. (Though, if you would care to explain how, I'll listen)

here's the specific definition by a U.S. law dictionary:

Death of an unborn child who is "quick" (fetus is moving) can be murder, provided there was premeditation, malice and no legal authority. Thus, abortion is not murder under the law. Example: Jack Violent shoots his pregnant girlfriend, killing the fetus. Manslaughter, both voluntary and involuntary, lacks the element of malice aforethought.

Assuming you stick to your response, I conclude that you intend the following:

(1) The fetus is a human being.
(2) Abortion takes the life of a human being.
(3) The definition of murder requires the killing to be unlawful.
(4) The only reason abortion isn't murder is because it is lawful.


Am I correct?

NO, you are not.

1. The fetus in not able to sustain independent life, thus not considered a human being.
2. Abortion does not take the life of a human being.
3. Abortion has this defintion (again from a legal dictionary):

the termination of pregnancy by various means, including medical surgery, before the fetus is able to sustain independent life. Until 1973 abortion was considered a crime (by the mother and the doctor) unless performed by physicians to protect the life of the mother, a phrase often broadly interpreted. Untrained persons performed thousands of abortions each year in the U.S. using hasty, unsanitary and dangerous means, resulting in maiming, permanent damage of organs, and death of many women.

4. Abortion was legalized for the protection and privacy of the woman because the fetus is not considered a human being in the eyes of the U.S. law.

Am I now? I don't recall making any statement that assumes life begins at conception, except in that parody of your post. I don't think I've even made any statements of the form "If life begins at conception, then <insert conclusion>".

Like I stated previously, I assumed you had this definition because you are implying that:
1. A fetus is a human being.
2. Abortion is murder.
3. Thus, human life begins at conception.

At your suggestion, I started reading up on Roe v Wade, and one thing really stood out: that the justices specifically intended to avoid having an opinion on this. Instead, the decision was based on the lack of legal precedent for ascribing rights to a fetus.

So, I'm now even less convinced that your opinions are backed by U.S. law. (at least some of them)

Hurkyl, I am becoming convinced you are selective reading my posts. I have stated over and over that the U.S. judicial system did not make a judgement call in the decision of abortion, but made it legal for the safety and privacy of women . If you are going to attack my views, at least ready my points without a predisposed bias.

Actually, I have an easy answer for your hypothetical: I practice abstinence.

Great, you are doing your part in preventing unwanted pregnancies. I assure you not everyone follows this example, and to expect them to is unrealistic in our society. I think you can agree to that.

I would also like to point out that there wouldn't even be a shred of tolerance in any other situation for the taking of a life merely to get ahead in the world. So, why is there tolerance for the taking of a life in this situation? Because it's legal? But weren't you trying to use this example to convince me why it should be legal? If so, you're wrapping yourself in a circular argument.

Again, here is where I get my assumption that you think life begins at conception. I think others would agree you hold that viewpoint.

Furthermore, your hypothetical was presented as if the man has a choice in the matter. Are you advocating that the man has a right to demand the abortion of this child?

Where did you get the idea I was advocating the rights of the man? I was presenting an argument of how his life is affected by the situation.

Penultimately, the lynchpin of your hypothetical is that having the baby leads to financial difficulty for all. Unless you meant to imply that abortion should be reserved only for those who aren't well off, that renders the whole thing moot.

I gave a very common example of why women choose abortion. Of course, there are probably many other reasons, such as a woman does not want to have children even though she would be able to provide.

And finally, this sounds an awful lot like a threat: that I should support abortion, otherwise bad things will happen to me. Is that really the form of argument you wanted to take?

Please tell me where I ever implied this? Matter of fact, I feel more you are out to attack my views which are consistent with the U.S. laws. I have given a reasonable response to each point brought up. This is the Value Theory Forum, so it is opinions and beliefs that are at hand here. I have supported my beliefs and opinions with my reasons as to why I believe abortion is acceptable. You won't change my stand on it, so please stop attacking my views, and if you have points you want to address, please don't read my posts selectively. Perhaps if this continues, this thread may need to be closed.

 

[Kerrie]

I didn't say I was an authority, I just meant I wasn't being very forceful with my opinion. I'm known to do that, you know...

gotcha

 

[plus]

I do not see why legality of abortion in the US should make it moral or not. Abortion is not legal in many countries. Are you saying that because these countries are not superpowers, then abortion is moral?
In reality the human moral values should be independant of US laws. As I am not a US citizen I fail to see the relevance.
If you want to trace exactly the victorious argument of Roe vs Wade, then the conclusion would become clear. It seems as if that is what you intent to do. I could just as well trace the victorious argument of the government of e.g. Chile.

 

[russ_watters]

I do not see why legality of abortion in the US should make it moral or not. Abortion is not legal in many countries. Are you saying that because these countries are not superpowers, then abortion is moral?
In reality the human moral values should be independant of US laws. As I am not a US citizen I fail to see the relevance.
If you want to trace exactly the victorious argument of Roe vs Wade, then the conclusion would become clear. It seems as if that is what you intent to do. I could just as well trace the victorious argument of the government of e.g. Chile.

You are correct and this is another problem with some of the statements made in this thread: laws follow morality, not the other way around. Our government was set up with that in mind and it occasionally makes its way into court cases. For laws over which there is some controversy, laws can and do change, so the legality of a certain act cannot constitute de facto evidence of its morality.

 

[Kerrie]

I do not see why legality of abortion in the US should make it moral or not. Abortion is not legal in many countries. Are you saying that because these countries are not superpowers, then abortion is moral?
In reality the human moral values should be independant of US laws. As I am not a US citizen I fail to see the relevance.
If you want to trace exactly the victorious argument of Roe vs Wade, then the conclusion would become clear. It seems as if that is what you intent to do. I could just as well trace the victorious argument of the government of e.g. Chile.

abortion is legal for practical reasons above moral reasons. i happen to agree that being practical in this situation rises above being moral, thus i agree (and support) the U.S. laws. and in those countries that abortion is illegal, how readily available is contraception? how expensive is it? unfortunately, america is a society where sex is thrown in your face consistently by the media, yet contraception is either expensive, or you must get a doctor's prescription for it. sometimes, lusty teens are not willing to wait for it. and if abortion was made illegal, can our society deal with a tremendous amount of single parents on welfare? can our society find homes for all of the unwanted children put up for adoption? these are practical and realistic issues at hand. it is the american tax payer footing the welfare bill, and taking care of many children who have the state as their legal guardian until a family is willing to adopt. i can only imagine the rise in taxes if our welfare system exploded.

abortion is certainly not the ideal method of dealing with this, but society in general is not an ideal one either. the harsh reality of the general public is many can be reckless, careless, and promiscuous, and if you deny this fact, you are seriously sheltered. the best we can do is advocate using contraception or abstinence. abstinence is something many people are just not going to practice because their hormones overrule them. kudos to those who do however.

plus, obviously americans have a different mindset of morals then the U.S. laws, many examples of that in this thread. i really think however, many of those oppossed to abortion fail to see the practicality of it over the morality of it. me personally, i think a woman who finds herself in this situation not rush into any decision, but weigh all of her options, reach out for emotional support as much as possible, and weigh all of her options.