News Over 1 million abortions each year in the US

[Astronuc]

Okay. So now I've heard someone try and tackle it...

(it's not very philosophical is it?)[/size]

Well, no, it isn't very philosophical. That wasn't in the specifications.

On the other hand, I was pointing out the contradictions/inconsistency in a particular belief system, although I am not supposed to disparage any religion.

I am not sure where a philosophical approach/discussion/argument would get one - a never ending argument I would imagine, as one gets over religious or political beliefs.

Ultimately it comes down to the values/rights of the individuals involved and the society in which they live. What right(s) does(do) the individual woman/fetus (and even father) have, and how does one resolve a conflict? IMO, a woman's body is her own and she has sole authority over it (period)! Even when a woman marries, she does not surrender that authority, even to her husband!

 

[daveb]

The whole disagreement between pro-life and pro-choice pretty much boils down to when life actually begins. Pro-life considers it to begin at conception, while pro-choice varies (but usually birth). Any pro-choice person who believes abortion should be legally available but also believes that life begins at conception is inherently saying that murder of a certain population segment is acceptable. Any pro-life advocate who claims that life begins some time after implantation is inherently illogical.

 

[SOS2008]

There is no argument that the mother is a living being. However, there is plenty of debate on when life begins for the developing fetus. My personal belief is that life begins when a being is able to survive independently of a host body. Until then it is only potential life, and the mother takes precedence as a living being.

I agree that those who are pro-life who believe abortion is murder, yet support abortion in the case of incest, rape or danger to the mother's life are not being consistent.

 

[daveb]

My personal belief is that life begins when a being is able to survive independently of a host body.

Ive always been fascinated by this belief, since it implies that medical science defines when life begins (to a point). 200 years ago, life then began at "birth" (roughly 9 months). 20 years ago, perhaps 7 months, now, perhaps 5 months http://www.neonatology.org/classics/morse.html" . I'm not saying I agree or disagree, but I wonder if there will eb alimit to where science can define life in this manner, or perhaps a better way might be to say life begins when it can survive without medical assistance. Then this opens a whole can of worms for severly disabled infants.

 

[Smurf]

Ultimately it comes down to the values/rights of the individuals involved and the society in which they live. What right(s) does(do) the individual woman/fetus (and even father) have, and how does one resolve a conflict? IMO, a woman's body is her own and she has sole authority over it (period)! Even when a woman marries, she does not surrender that authority, even to her husband!

I'm not sure I understand this argument. Whenever I've discussed this issue with someone who is against abortion the husband has never even come into it. The debate is mostly about the rights of the fetus and wether the mother has a right to intrude on that.

 

[Smurf]

I agree that those who are pro-life who believe abortion is murder, yet support abortion in the case of incest, rape or danger to the mother's life are not being consistent.

I agree it is inconsistant in the case of rape and incest. However when the mother's life is in danger I see no inconsistancy. (I've never heard anyone say that).

The (best) arguments I hear don't put the baby's life as more important than the mother's, just that the baby's right to life is more important than the mother's right to a more comfortable nine months (for lack of a better way to call it).

 

[daveb]

I find it immensely hilarious that a large portion of the pro-life crowd is against abortion even in the case of the mother's life being in danger, yet have no problem demanding that people have the right to defend themselves, even to the point of killing, if their own life or property is threatened.

 

[Zlex]

The whole disagreement between pro-life and pro-choice pretty much boils down to when life actually begins. Pro-life considers it to begin at conception, while pro-choice varies (but usually birth). Any pro-choice person who believes abortion should be legally available but also believes that life begins at conception is inherently saying that murder of a certain population segment is acceptable. Any pro-life advocate who claims that life begins some time after implantation is inherently illogical.

I disagree.

1] 'StartOffFrom': Merely potential members of the future generation have rights that the present generation claims it must consider/defend.

2] Proceed to: It is not possible to proceed from the subset 'potential member of future generation' to 'actual member of present generation' without passing through the stage Zygote.


3] EndUpWith: Actual members of present generation have rights.


1] -> 2] -> 3]. My argument does not start off with, or even depend on, the definition of when 'actual' life begins. In fact, I'll agree that a Zygote is merely a potential member of the actual present generation, just as, any particular member of the subset 'future generation' is merely potential.

However, clearly, a merely conceived Zygote is an enormity of statistical unlikeliness less 'potential' then the complete subset 'potential future generations.'

My argument does not depend on the least as to when life begins, so feel free to define it as, at birth, when the umbilical cord is cut, and an infant human still cannot survive on its own, but potentially could, as long as no third party kills it.

If your argument is, only 'actual' life has rights that the present generation must consider, then that excludes merely potential future generations as well. Oil. Global Warming. Yucca Flats. Wilderness. CO2. What of it? Do we regard the rights of only actual life, or do we include merely potential life, as well?

Be at least as consistant as the death-penalty/gun supporters you are pooh-poohing.

 

[daveb]

I never claimed only actual life has rights. I merely stated that it comes to a question of when life begins. As with any social issue, there are always exceptions to the rule. While it is true your argument does not necessitate the need to define when life begins, the majority I think do not think in terms of "future generations". Since pro-life is usually associated with the religious right (in the U.S.), which in turn is associated with pro-Republican, pro-death penalty, anti-environmental regulation, I do not believe that the majority hold your viewpoint.

 

[Dooga Blackrazor]

That's fascinating logic!
So, if we accept the "pro-life" (gah) argument that abortion is equal to murder, we still shouldn't ban it because people should be free (from government intervention) to choose to kill their babies should they desire to.
Consequently, from this logic, since we accept the premise abortion is the equivalent of murder, it should also be stated that any form of murder, adult, infant or fetus, should be legal as well. Any individual deserves to be free (from government intervention) to do such should they so desire.
Well. Since we've done away with murder, we mine as well do-away with assault, theft, and child-pornography as well. *gasp* Evo! Are you suggesting we shouldn't have any laws at all?
Tu l'anarchiste, tu :!)

I wasn't looking at it from that perspective. Some people object to abortion morally to a lesser extent. For instance, they think killing a potential child should be avoided. In fact, many pro-life individuals feel this way. If someone is illogical enough to think it is murder, I can understand why they would be against it. However, pregnacy is a form of torture when a women is forced to undergo it. So, to save ones life, from a biblical perspective, involve subjecting an individual to pain against their will. Violence as a solution is always the right-wing perspective. If they think abortion is so wrong, they should educate people. After all, if they're right, people will just start turning away from it.

 

[SOS2008]

Ive always been fascinated by this belief, since it implies that medical science defines when life begins (to a point). 200 years ago, life then began at "birth" (roughly 9 months). 20 years ago, perhaps 7 months, now, perhaps 5 months http://www.neonatology.org/classics/morse.html". I'm not saying I agree or disagree, but I wonder if there will eb alimit to where science can define life in this manner, or perhaps a better way might be to say life begins when it can survive without medical assistance. Then this opens a whole can of worms for severly disabled infants.

I’ve had these same thoughts. Abortion itself is based on medical advancement, as is the ability to sustain life outside the womb earlier and earlier in development. I support technological advancement in either case.

I agree it is inconsistant in the case of rape and incest. However when the mother's life is in danger I see no inconsistancy. (I've never heard anyone say that).
The (best) arguments I hear don't put the baby's life as more important than the mother's, just that the baby's right to life is more important than the mother's right to a more comfortable nine months (for lack of a better way to call it).

Putting the mother’s life first is a logical acceptance that she is a living being beyond question. Still, those who believe abortion is murder should believe it is murder no matter what (and why I have a big problem with this term, which I feel is abused for emotional reaction). That incest/rape also may be an exception has to do with the mother’s emotional/mental/physical well being (rape is an act of violence not just sex) as well as possible birth defects from incest. The bottom line is making abortion illegal means we as a society must dismiss the well being of the living, and I for one am not willing to do that.

That you feel nine months of pregnancy is only “uncomfortable” indicates to me that you have not read this entire thread and all the issues involved beyond pregnancy and giving birth. Perhaps we should stop focusing on ways to decrease abortion, and instead begin research on how men can be responsible for childbirth and raising children on their own instead of women.

My argument does not depend on the least as to when life begins, so feel free to define it as, at birth, when the umbilical cord is cut, and an infant human still cannot survive on its own, but potentially could, as long as no third party kills it.

Another good point that I have thought about. Infants of many species still rely on adults to survive their early life. I think it suffices to stick to the wholly formed, independently breathing being as a definition of life.

Be at least as consistant as the death-penalty/gun supporters you are pooh-poohing.

I am pro-choice, pro capital punishment, and pro right to bear arms if that helps any.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Perhaps we should stop focusing on ways to decrease abortion, and instead begin research on how men can be responsible for childbirth and raising children on their own instead of women.

I know a few men that have taken custody of their children and are raising them on their own (and I have never heard of a woman paying child support to her husband). I know even more men that would if they could.
Unfortunately a woman's reproductive organs are where fetuses develope and there isn't much that can be done about that. As far as taking responsibility for the child after birth there are fathers(and potential fathers) who would do so. Obviously these are more of an exception but even in the cases where the father doesn't stick around the mother has the option of putting the child up for adoption.
I think it's pretty obvious that we should make sure to reduce the number of abortions that occur. No one really wants to have one. It's not very healthy physically or psychologically. The best way to do this ofcourse is to prevent unwanted pregnancies both through birthcontrol and teaching people to be more responsible sexually. As far as medical complications making sure that more and better prenatal care for young and poor mothers is available is probably the best solution.

 

[Entropy]

Perhaps we should stop focusing on ways to decrease abortion, and instead begin research on how men can be responsible for childbirth and raising children on their own instead of women

I'd gladly raise my child on my own as an alternative to abortion. But part of the reason women get abortion so they don't have to actually carry and give birth.

 

[SOS2008]

I'd gladly raise my child on my own as an alternative to abortion. But part of the reason women get abortion so they don't have to actually carry and give birth.

I'm not saying there aren't men who will take responsibility when fathering a child. And it's true most women don't view pregnancy and childbirth as particularly enjoyable--for some it is very difficult. However there is more to it than just being "uncomfortable." In another thread I pointed out that aside from earning 74 cents to a man’s dollar, going full term could result in loss of income and even a job in order to take maternity leave. Then she needs a significant income to pay for childcare if she is to continue working. That's just the beginning of what a single mother faces.

 

[Dayle Record]

I was once told by my physician that in blind studies in Minnesota done with married women, 4 out 5 conceptions fail naturally. Apparently nature approves of aborting.

I think the big anti abortion push in this country aside from obvious religious prohibitions of all kinds in regards to sex, and abortion, is racism. I see the right wing fundamentalist core that is really pushing for an abortion ban, as a shrinking white population, that feels it is in competition with newer populations that have more children, and who are largely latino.

It is shown that the better off people are, the fewer children they have. The poorer and more disadvantaged people are, the more children they have.

I think that the joy, safety, and comfort a parent has to offer a child is of paramount importance to the future of our world in general. I think the personal attention and energy and vibrancy a parent has to share with a child is also very important, and this dilutes accutely in larger family populations. I personally can't imagine a life where crowd control is a part of the daily experience.

Lastly, it is not the business of state, to legislate what consenting adults do for their physical pleasure. The uterus is also not an affair of state. Clerics have no business pushing legislature that defines sex, or reproductive rights in this secular nation.

All of the "out to lunch religious fanatics" in this nation, take their rights for granted. The right to posture in an annoying fashion, is just a right, like choosing a Halloween mask, but, it is not an alternate reality.

 

[Loren Booda]

Is it possible that all embryos will one day be considered viable due to advances in science, and that women would be required to submit to an embryonic "transfer" (rather than abortion), with the viable tissue transplanted to a (male or female) surrogate or raised in vitro?

 

[Dooga Blackrazor]

Social conservatives would still complain. They would say pregnacy is God's punishment for women, and they must submit to his will. It's all a bunch of nonsense. I would like to see something like that happen. Instead of having overpopulation, though, I would suggest raising them in vitro some how to harvest stem cells.