Seven questions about abortion

[Hurkyl]

Of course the anti-abortion(and anti-freedom in general) crowd can give an unambiguous answer..which is exactly why they need to be removed from the debate. They base all their decisions on religious viewpoints, a stance that the government should not, and cannot take.

Fallacy meter readings... off the charts...

Am I anti-freedom if I think it should be illegal for you to murder me?

Why must one speak ambiguously to be allowed in a debate?

Since when is being against murder a purely religous viewpoint?

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by Hurkyl
Fallacy meter readings... off the charts...

Am I anti-freedom if I think it should be illegal for you to murder me?

Why must one speak ambiguously to be allowed in a debate?

Since when is being against murder a purely religous viewpoint?

Calling abortion 'murder' is mostly a religious viewpoint, and we both know it. The main problem that religious people have isn't with abortion anyways, it is with people having sex. They see pregnancy as the 'punishment' for having sex, which is why they are against abortion, condoms, the pill, emergency contracption, and sex education. Their unambiguous viewpoint comes from religious zealotry and a hatred towards anyone who would be more free than their oppressive faith would allow.

 

[Hurkyl]

Calling abortion 'murder' is mostly a religious viewpoint, and we both know it.

No, I don't know it.


Incidentally, are you saying that many pro-choice advocates have a religous viewpoint as well? Specifically, the ones who think abortion is murder under certain circumstances. (such as when the fetus is deemed conscious by some criteria)

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by Hurkyl
No, I don't know it.


Incidentally, are you saying that many pro-choice advocates have a religous viewpoint as well? Specifically, the ones who think abortion is murder under certain circumstances. (such as when the fetus is deemed conscious by some criteria)

Well, that's why there have always been restrictions on late-term abortions, natch. The 'its a person at conception' are mainly religioso.

 

[Hurkyl]

And why again does that make it a viewpoint that should not be entered into the discussion? I can understand why a religous viewpoint should not be considered in a context where religous viewpoints are forbidden (such as US governmental policy)... but I see no justification for dismissing without consideration a viewpoint that most religous people happen to hold.

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by Hurkyl
And why again does that make it a viewpoint that should not be entered into the discussion? I can understand why a religous viewpoint should not be considered in a context where religous viewpoints are forbidden (such as US governmental policy)... but I see no justification for dismissing without consideration a viewpoint that most religous people happen to hold.

Calling abortion murder would generally be considered a government function, seeing as how government decides what is murder and what isn't. Religious arguments HAVE been considered, and have been found to not outweigh personal choice, freedom, the mother's health and well-being, and the woman's right to control her own body.

And, of course, a majority viewpoint doesn't automatically give any legal credence to a viewpoint. In fact, it is usually argued that laws and rights exist specifically to protect the minority viewpoint from undue discrimination.

 

[Hurkyl]

It's nice to know the issue has been solved and there's no room for any discussion anymore.

 

[schwarzchildradius]

unborn infants are aborted naturally by womens' bodies all the time, sometimes without them even knowing that they were pregnant. Being human is a messy business. Just preserving a unique genome isn't enough to justify intimidating young girls (or not young girls) into having a baby that they can't take care of.
As Sagan said, there are far more possible humans than there are humans who have ever existed.

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by Hurkyl
It's nice to know the issue has been solved and there's no room for any discussion anymore.

Isn't it, though?

Actually, it is, I'm sure, open to a NEW argument, if someone had one. Simply saying 'We STILL think it is murder' is an old argument.

 

[Hurkyl]

Just as "We STILL think it's not murder" is an old argument.

Of course, neither are arguments, they're statements of position.


I am certainly unfamiliar with any compelling reason for any general criterion for deciding whether an instance of abortion is murder or not (note: that includes both drawing the line at conception or many months later); with the bulk of the rationale I've ever seen on the topic much like your and Zantra's "This is the way things are, period, and you're stupid to think otherwise" statements, I've not had much enlightenment on this issue (and I strongly suspect you, Zantra, and most people in general have not).

In fact, the only substantive argument I've seen either way is the "leech" argument, that a woman has a right not to have this thing leeching off of her body, even if it is a real person with rights. (Though, for the record, I don't it convincing, because one can generally prevent one's self from being in such a position)

 

[LURCH]

That's about where I come down on the subject as well. I will state plainly that I oppose abortion, I think it needs to be stopped. But not because I say it is murder, nor because anyone else says so. Rather, it is because nobody can say for certain that it isn't. We cannot continue terminating fetuses based on the mere possibility that they might not be people. The practice should be halted until we know if it's killing anyone or not.

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by Hurkyl
Just as "We STILL think it's not murder" is an old argument.

Of course, neither are arguments, they're statements of position.


I am certainly unfamiliar with any compelling reason for any general criterion for deciding whether an instance of abortion is murder or not (note: that includes both drawing the line at conception or many months later); with the bulk of the rationale I've ever seen on the topic much like your and Zantra's "This is the way things are, period, and you're stupid to think otherwise" statements, I've not had much enlightenment on this issue (and I strongly suspect you, Zantra, and most people in general have not).

In fact, the only substantive argument I've seen either way is the "leech" argument, that a woman has a right not to have this thing leeching off of her body, even if it is a real person with rights. (Though, for the record, I don't it convincing, because one can generally prevent one's self from being in such a position)

First off, just because I think you are wrong, it doesn't automatically follow that I think you are stupid.

Secondly, the point where a fetus is considered a human being has been legally based on medical science, generally when the fetus has reached a certain level of development. It wasn't just an arbitrary decision to decide that the transition would be at 6 months.

Why do you suspect that we haven't heard any good arguments? Because we don't agree with you, or because we haven't been posting all the reasons?

 

[Hurkyl]

First off, just because I think you are wrong, it doesn't automatically follow that I think you are stupid.

Ack, I didn't mean to edit out my parenthetical that I knew I was exaggerating here! I know not "stupid", but for instance "subjective", as Zantra was claiming.

Why do you suspect that we haven't heard any good arguments? Because we don't agree with you, or because we haven't been posting all the reasons?

Because I have encountered very few arguments that had any substance to them, and y'all's posts have been pretty much mirroring the empty "arguments" that I have encountered.

Lack of evidence y'all know better is, of course, not evidence y'all don't know better, but it doesn't mean I can't suspect it.

 

[Zero]

Well, 6 months is the recognized point at which a fetus has a developed nervous system, and could possibly live outside the womb. Last time I checked, what makes us 'special'(not that I buy into humans being special in any way) is the human intellect, which a collection of cells the size of my thumb simply doesn't have any claim to.

 

[schwarzchildradius]

I've heard a lot of people say that 'Bush is a murderer' (could've been greenpeace). Murder by definition is killing another human being under conditions specifically covered in law. That entry is followed by a dozen colloquial uses.
So a physician, or Bush, is only a true murderer if he is Convicted of Murder.
Therefore, despite whatever moral feelings you may have about it, it's not murder as long as it is legal.
**
the state takes human life regularly in executions, that's not murder at all but a set of circumstances and possibly facts allowing the killing of one human being by another.

 

[Laser Eyes]

Secondly, the point where a fetus is considered a human being has been legally based on medical science, generally when the fetus has reached a certain level of development. It wasn't just an arbitrary decision to decide that the transition would be at 6 months.

To pick a point somewhere between conception and birth and say at this very moment the fetus becomes a human but one second before it was not sounds very arbitrary.

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by Laser Eyes
To pick a point somewhere between conception and birth and say at this very moment the fetus becomes a human but one second before it was not sounds very arbitrary.

Well, it seems more arbitrary to me to call a lump of cells smaller than a grape a human being...

 

[schwarzchildradius]

the fetus IS human at conception, but that doesn't mean that we can't choose to end its life for a greater good! I just think that if you have a legally enforced death penalty you can't make abortion illegal, in principle.

 

[dschou]

quote (from the far back reaches of antiquity):
------------------------------------------------------------------
And conveniently enough, you're not a woman.
------------------------------------------------------------------

this is irrelevant. morality knows no gender.

 

[dschou]

Quote:

"Well, it seems more arbitrary to me to call a lump of cells smaller than a grape a human being..."

-------------------------------------------------------------------

no it doesn't.

rather, it is much less arbitrary when there is no transition from non-human to human.

think about it: anything that is a human was conceived as a human and will die as a human without any "phase transitions", which is not very arbitrary. what is arbitrary though, is this insertion of semantics arguments at periods of time that are convenient to the destruction of human life.

for instance "before 6 months have passed we'll change the name of the thing we are talking about so that we can get rid of it without throwing up".

 

[Galatea]

Originally posted by dschou
quote (from the far back reaches of antiquity):
------------------------------------------------------------------
And conveniently enough, you're not a woman.
------------------------------------------------------------------

this is irrelevant. morality knows no gender.

Where is the morality in bringing an unwanted child into the world? It's like a toss-up between quick or slow death.

This is a heated debate and while I may have objective feelings on it (indeed, I do) I must say (subjectively) that it bothers me tremendously to see predominantly men arguing about it. I don't like the idea of anyone legislating their morality but for some reason on this particular topic, the idea that men feel this is any of their business perplexes me.

Is it murder? Is it not? Chicken or egg? Are they humans with rights or just leeches on the mother? Does something that cannot function without a host "count"? Is it more unfair to end somethings life when no one wanted it in the first place? Is it really _any_ of your business what I do with my body? If so, why?

 

[dschou]

Originally posted by Galatea
Where is the morality in bringing an unwanted child into the world? It's like a toss-up between quick or slow death.

following this reasoning we should chop up all the cancer patients as well.

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by dschou
quote (from the far back reaches of antiquity):
------------------------------------------------------------------
And conveniently enough, you're not a woman.
------------------------------------------------------------------

this is irrelevant. morality knows no gender.

Morality doesn't exist...ethics works, and it is more ethical to eliminate an unfeeling, unknowing fetus than it is to bring an unwanted child into the world. 'Morality' is usually based on some religious idea, which is likewise based on wanting to dominate others.

 

[dschou]

Originally posted by Zero
Morality doesn't exist...ethics works, and it is more ethical to eliminate an unfeeling, unknowing fetus than it is to bring an unwanted child into the world. 'Morality' is usually based on some religious idea, which is likewise based on wanting to dominate others.

i can't say that this is an imaginative solution to the problem. your modus operandus: when faced with a moral dilemna, simply state that morals do not exist and continue the killing.

likewise, as i plummet to my death, i can simply follow suit with wile-coyote and deny that gravity exists. this will inevitably solve all acceleration problems. and when i try to grasp the horror of the holocaust, i need only deny the jews their humanity and the problem is solved. what a neat and tidy affair.

 

[Galatea]

Originally posted by dschou
following this reasoning we should chop up all the cancer patients as well.

Umm, not exactly. Cancer patients can choose to receive treatment or not just as mothers should be able to choose if they'd like to continue with a pregnancy or not.

 

[Hurkyl]

I'm curious; what is the practical difference between ethics and morals?

 

[dschou]

Originally posted by Galatea
Umm, not exactly. Cancer patients can choose to receive treatment or not just as mothers should be able to choose if they'd like to continue with a pregnancy or not.

again, your honor, relevance? i quote once more:

"Where is the morality in bringing an unwanted child into the world? It's like a toss-up between quick or slow death."

the issue is the cancer patient's life and quick/slow death juxtaposed against the child's life and quick/slow death, not the mother's. so what you should really be questioning, is whether the child can decide to "end treatment", i.e. abort spontaneously.

 

[FZ+]

Unlike the cancer patient, the foetus can't talk. It's a toss up as to whether the foetus can be considered human, as we judge that it has not gained the distinctive human quality - a human mind.

Secondly, we have another similarity here - the cancer patient is reliant on their life support system, as is the fetus on the mother. The point is of dependence - since the fetus is dependent on the mother for life, the mother has the choice of providing the service. Or say, switching off the life support system.

 

[Hurkyl]

But does your argument hold up to any slight modification of the analogy? What if, say, the cancer patient is in a coma? Or if 'e is merely unconscious, or even just asleep?

Or what if it's not someone at the end of their life? Is it ethical to disconnect from life-support an unconscious child(who will recover fully from whatever happened) who lives in poverty with parents who don't love him and want him dead?

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by Hurkyl
I'm curious; what is the practical difference between ethics and morals?

Morals are for people too lazy to have ethics?

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by Hurkyl
But does your argument hold up to any slight modification of the analogy? What if, say, the cancer patient is in a coma? Or if 'e is merely unconscious, or even just asleep?

Or what if it's not someone at the end of their life? Is it ethical to disconnect from life-support an unconscious child(who will recover fully from whatever happened) who lives in poverty with parents who don't love him and want him dead?

Well, if you keep comparing a fetus to a person, we won't ever egree, now will we?

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by dschou
i can't say that this is an imaginative solution to the problem. your modus operandus: when faced with a moral dilemna, simply state that morals do not exist and continue the killing.

likewise, as i plummet to my death, i can simply follow suit with wile-coyote and deny that gravity exists. this will inevitably solve all acceleration problems. and when i try to grasp the horror of the holocaust, i need only deny the jews their humanity and the problem is solved. what a neat and tidy affair.

LOL, you are funny in your way, I suppose. I never claimed that it wasn't an ethical dilemma, now did I? Ethics are better than morality, as I see it...a topic better suited for the Philosophy board, I'm sure.
Anyways, the point is, this is not a black and white issue, in my opinion, and a 6 week old isn't a person IMO, therefore has no right to anything whatsoever.

 

[Hurkyl]

Morals are for people too lazy to have ethics?

I'm confused then; if the only difference between morals and ethics is the person who has them, what can be the meaning of your previous post on morality?

Well, if you keep comparing a fetus to a person, we won't ever egree, now will we?

Might I point out that I was responding to a post that is comparing a fetus to a person?

And, of course, that the question of when is a fetus a person is one of the core issues in the pro-choice / pro-life debate, so it's somewhat intellectually dishonest to ridicule the idea.

And for funsies, you certainly seemed to accept that we can compare a fetus to a person in the latter weeks of the pregnancy; are you a hypocrit?

 

[FZ+]

But does your argument hold up to any slight modification of the analogy? What if, say, the cancer patient is in a coma? Or if 'e is merely unconscious, or even just asleep?

Or what if it's not someone at the end of their life? Is it ethical to disconnect from life-support an unconscious child(who will recover fully from whatever happened) who lives in poverty with parents who don't love him and want him dead?

Yep, I expected that. Notice the exact words I used - "Never gained".

That the mind is dependent on experiences - that it is these that form the person, and thus create our individualism. As the fetus has no memories and hence no unique mind, and is not important to someone else, it's existence has no unique significance and so it's termination is not really a loss in terms of humanity.

If we do not consider that, then how do you rule out the absurd situation of not killing bacteria, because they are "unconscious children" that will wake up in a few billion years of evolution? It may be arbitary (as humans are IMHO not absolutely "special" in any sense), but the social measure of murder is based on human life, and human attachment.

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by Hurkyl


And for funsies, you certainly seemed to accept that we can compare a fetus to a person in the latter weeks of the pregnancy; are you a hypocrit?

Nope, not a hypocrit at all...how does that make me a hypocrit?