Is killing an unborn child an act of violence? [Archive]

rwyatt365

12-21-2007, 06:48 AM

At what point does a fetus gain the right to use the body of another person to survive, while already born, unquestionably-established people cannot do the same?
A valid point, but (in many, but not all cases) the fetus is not an "invader". The child did not come into being and insert itself into the womb. It was placed there as a result of an act by the mother and father so to treat it as a parasite is an unfair characterization. Now, the act of conception might not have been consensual between the two parents, but that is not the "fault" of the fetus. So, if we're talking "rights"; what "right" does the parent have to evict the fetus for an act that it did not cause? Consider the other point of view.
Let's say I'm dying of kidney failure. And let's say that you are the only person in the world that's a possible for donor to me. Can I take your kidney? Can I use your body, against your will, for my own survival? If you give the fetus the right to use a woman's body against her will, you give the fetus rights that a living, breathing, already-established person doesn't have-- to use someone else for their own survival.
As stated above, your argument is valid, but not entirely applicable. In the case of the kidney, you are asking me to give up a part of my body for your benefit because of a condition that I had no part of. To demand that would be wrong, because I did not cause your affliction and so have no obligation to sustain you with my body. An applicable analogy would be if I stabbed you in your kidney and thus rendered it inoperable so that you required a transplant. Then, if you asked (or demanded) that I replace that damaged kidney, you would have a fair case for asking. I caused your condition, therefore I bear some responsibility for remedying it.
I believe that a fetus is, at some point before birth, a "child", but I also believe that a woman's right to bodily integrity trumps a fetus' right to use her body for survival. It's a prioritizing of moral values.
…I would just ask that you would consider cause and effect in the determination of those moral values.
I think he was arguing from potentiality. That bundle of cells has the potential to be a human being, a potentiality conferred on it by DNA. But I have the potential to be 22... or a geriatric person... but I'm not. Potentiality is a slippery slope.
Agreed, but the whole question is slippery…
And whether or not the fetus is a human being, giving it the right to use someone else's body for its survival gives it SUPERhuman rights. See my above post. I've never gotten a sufficient pro-life answer to that argument.
I'm not necessarily pro-life, but I hope I've provided a viewpoint.
Hmmm...using that logic, whenever you scratch an itch you are committing an act of violence, in the strictest sense, because you are removing skin cells, causing them to die.
I knew someone was going to catch that flaw! Good job Hdier!

Yes, one could argue on the basis of this logic that any damage to the human body could be considered murder (at some level). But if you scratch your own skin cells, then you have "murdered" yourself – is that murder? And since your composite "self" (what remains after the sacrifice of those cells) still remains, did "you" really die (or just some portion of yourself)? So then, the law would have to determine not only what constitutes a human, but how much of a person constitutes a person (i.e. define a "unit human"). An interesting concept!

Santana28

12-21-2007, 08:00 AM

Yep. But so is bringing an unwanted child into a horrible life. Parents should be flogged as deterrence.

Adoption should be mandatory.

rwyatt365

12-21-2007, 08:14 AM

Yep. But so is bringing an unwanted child into a horrible life. Parents should be flogged as deterrence.

Adoption should be mandatory.
Unquestionably. If there was some foolproof means to identify unwanted children and place them in better situations, then I would be all for that. I think it's unconscionable for children to endure a wretched life because a parent, or parents don't want them. Unfortunately, I don't have a workable alternative (flogging wouldn't be a bad thing, but it might not solve the problem).

Hdier

12-21-2007, 09:28 AM

Hummmm, maybe their could be something along the lines of: once the fetus has developed organs (but they are not necessarily functioning) then they would be considered a human. (If that's what the trimester thing is, can someone please let me know? I'm a bit fuzzy on that) Perhaps there could be some sort of 'x cells is this crime, y cells is this crime' and so on and so forth.

stasis

12-21-2007, 09:34 AM

A fetus is not an "unborn child". It's a fetus. It no more has social substance, and therefore 'personhood', than does sperm or egg or your liver. Similarly, the body of an old man being kept alive by machinery long after the brain has liquefied is not an "undead adult".

Also, murder is an illegal killing. If abortion is legal (subject to the law), it isn't murder. It's just killing. Although, arguably, there's no qualitative distinction with regard to the act itself - the ramifications are what vary. Calling abortion "murder" is usually hyperbole.

Finally, I would say that there's no way to force pregnant women to give birth without destroying their rights to personhood. Were they to resist, what then? Imprison them and then strap them to a table? I don't think that's viable.

Question Everything

12-21-2007, 09:50 AM

A valid point, but (in many, but not all cases) the fetus is not an "invader". The child did not come into being and insert itself into the womb. It was placed there as a result of an act by the mother and father so to treat it as a parasite is an unfair characterization. Now, the act of conception might not have been consensual between the two parents, but that is not the "fault" of the fetus. So, if we're talking "rights"; what "right" does the parent have to evict the fetus for an act that it did not cause? Consider the other point of view.

As stated above, your argument is valid, but not entirely applicable. In the case of the kidney, you are asking me to give up a part of my body for your benefit because of a condition that I had no part of. To demand that would be wrong, because I did not cause your affliction and so have no obligation to sustain you with my body. An applicable analogy would be if I stabbed you in your kidney and thus rendered it inoperable so that you required a transplant. Then, if you asked (or demanded) that I replace that damaged kidney, you would have a fair case for asking. I caused your condition, therefore I bear some responsibility for remedying it.

I'm assuming here that the parents used a contraceptive, in which case neither consented to a fetus in the womb. So it's not the "fault" of the fetus that it's there, but it's not the "fault" of the parents, either. And, preemptively: to argue that having sex implies some sort of consent to a fetus in the womb is analogous to saying that driving implies consent to a wreck. We don't make someone who drove safely and took reasonable precautions pay the price for a wreck (and I realize that no, the fetus did not cause its implantation, but i'm using that analogy strictly for the perspective of the innocent driver, to say that it's troublesome to force someone who took all reasonable precautions to bear negative consequences of something that was not their fault).

As for the stabbing in the kidney, the parents did not stab. They took reasonable precautions to prevent stabbing. Perhaps... if you were holding a knife, and I ran into it with my kidney accidentally. In which case, I would still argue that you're under no moral obligation to provide me with one of your kidneys.

And I think it's going to boil down to the same argument again. Bodily integrity versus right to use someone else's body to sustain life. Bodily integrity versus right to life, from the perspective of the fetus.

I'm not convinced by your argument, but it's certainly interesting. I haven't had someone argue for stabbing me in the kidney before.

…I would just ask that you would consider cause and effect in the determination of those moral values.

And the cause and effect of letting the government dictate what a woman does with her body?

I admit that as a feminist, I worry about the differential standard being applied to the genders here, that a woman's body is subject to governmental control like that with no similar control over men. I understand there's no way we could apply a pregnancy standard to men, of course, but what a way to make women be differentially subject to government control. It's like... 9 month uterus slavery (I know I'm exaggerating).

A related side note: It's interesting how vastly the arguments differ when one is arguing either from the side of the fetus or the woman. As a woman, I identify with the pregnant woman; the idea of the government invading my uterus in such a way terrifies me to no end. (The idea that I could be raped and then forced to carry a rapist's child to term because I had no say over my body-- that's scary.) And I find most men seem to side with the fetus, which I guess they identify with more than the woman (I have no grounding for saying that, really, it's just a thought).

stasis

12-21-2007, 10:09 AM

And I find most men seem to side with the fetus, which I guess they identify with more than the woman (I have no grounding for saying that, really, it's just a thought).
As applies here, I don't think men tend to identify with the fetus as much as they identify with the patriarchal subjugation of women. It's more about having a say (power) than about what is being said. That is traditional, after all.

Pinkie

12-21-2007, 10:24 AM

Do you think that the identification of men with the 'patriarchal subjugation of women' is on a conscious or subconsious level?

Santana28

12-21-2007, 10:35 AM

i think this question is irrelevant. Of course killing anything is an act of violence. The real question is whether you think it should be permitted or not.

In all honesty - an unborn child is the exclusive property of the mother. she can choose to bring a child into the world, or not - its solely her discretion. Treating abortion as a matter that can be governed and legislated is in effect turning over ownership of the fetus to the government instead of the mother, and i believe that is wrong.

Yes, if the mother wants to abort her baby by whatever methods at 8 months... i'd say that is monstrous - but not criminal. It is her body, and her choice - and the government should have no say over that.

Now i will say this - i think the father has rights. If the sex was consensual between both parties, and the man wants the child and the mother wants to abort it - i think the man should be able to legally prevent the abortion from taking place, if he is willing to assume 100% custody. The woman consented into the sexual arrangement in the first place - that was her choice. I dont think we should force people to care for children that are unwanted or can not be cared for - but if one party is willing, then we should side on the side of life.

So i'm all for removing ALL government regulation. Of course, removing Federal regulation and returning it to the states is still preferable to the current system.

stasis

12-21-2007, 10:37 AM

Do you think that the identification of men with the 'patriarchal subjugation of women' is on a conscious or subconsious level?
With regard to that dichotomy, I would say 'subconscious'. I think it is a cultural inclination having to do with what has been the traditional male roles in western society (as elsewhere) being bound up in seeking and exercising power over externalities.

Of course killing anything is an act of violence.
Then taking a shower is an act of violence; the slaughter of millions if not billions of bacterium. The term "violence" either loses much of its meaning when applied to 'killing anything', or carries meaning inappropriate to the context.

Santana28

12-21-2007, 10:59 AM

Then taking a shower is an act of violence; the slaughter of millions if not billions of bacterium. The term "violence" either loses much of its meaning when applied to 'killing anything', or carries meaning inappropriate to the context.

Yes, it is! Think about all of those poor, defenseless germs! Do you feel for them?

The emphasis is on the subject matter being exterminated, than the mere act of extermination. We kill bugs every day and dont think about it. We kill germs when we shower. We kill babies when we abort them. We kill sperm when we squirt it on the floor ;)

"Violence" = behavior involving physical force intended to hurt, damage, or kill someone or something.

This goes without question.

The emphasis should be on the intended target.

stasis

12-21-2007, 11:14 AM

This goes without question.
In my opinion, your usage - or what appears to be your usage, I may be mistaken - is basically inoperable. Just about every act any human performs on this planet would be classifiable as "violence", in that something is being killed. Stepping on an ant while walking down the street would be "violence". Harvesting corn would be "violence". Shaking a person's hand would be "violence". Recovering from a cold or the flu would be "violence".

'Violence' in that usage becomes synonymous with 'to act', which destroys the meaning of the word. You might as well not use it at all? What are you trying to communicate by using the term, exactly?

Santana28

12-21-2007, 11:19 AM

In my opinion, your usage - or what appears to be your usage, I may be mistaken - is basically inoperable. Just about every act any human performs on this planet would be classifiable as "violence", in that something is being killed. Stepping on an ant while walking down the street would be "violence". Harvesting corn would be "violence". Shaking a person's hand would be "violence". Recovering from a cold or the flu would be "violence".

'Violence' in that usage becomes synonymous with 'to act', which destroys the meaning of the word. You might as well not use it at all? What are you trying to communicate, exactly?

i'm trying to emphasize that focusing on the word "violence" is the incorrect and illogical thing to do. If you accept the definition of "violence" as that in the dictionary, then you are correct - it is nearly synonymous with action. That being said - do you judge that to be a "bad" thing, or a "good" thing? Or do you think that it is not your place to judge?

The question was "Is killing an unborn child an act of violence." Clearly by the definition of violence, it is. The focus should instead be 1) what is your moral/ethical opinion on the application of violence toward unborn children, and 2) what is your moral/ethical opinion on the application of violence in general?

stasis

12-21-2007, 11:28 AM

i'm trying to emphasize that focusing on the word "violence" is the incorrect and illogical thing to do. If you accept the definition of "violence" as that in the dictionary, then you are correct - it is nearly synonymous with action.
Okay. Correct me if I'm wrong, but it looks like you're saying that the question of classifying abortion as "a violent act" isn't worth debating because the term is meaningless (can be applied to almost anything). That's not really the case, though. I think people who try to classify abortion as "a violent act" are using the term in a meaningful way, in line with the essential position that they hold (fetus = person). It isn't an illogical focus if you accept that premise, which means attacking the usage doesn't seem to do much for the argument.

Not that I agree with the premise.

Santana28

12-21-2007, 12:34 PM

Okay. Correct me if I'm wrong, but it looks like you're saying that the question of classifying abortion as "a violent act" isn't worth debating because the term is meaningless (can be applied to almost anything). That's not really the case, though. I think people who try to classify abortion as "a violent act" are using the term in a meaningful way, in line with the essential position that they hold (fetus = person). It isn't an illogical focus if you accept that premise, which means attacking the usage doesn't seem to do much for the argument.

Not that I agree with the premise.

I'm not saying that at all. What i'm saying is that the word "violence" has whatever meaning you/i/anyone applies to it. In context of the question originally asked, based on the dictionary definition, it is correct - killing is an act of violence. Your opinion of the use of violence itself, or the value of what the violence is being directed toward - that is the important question of this matter.

Killing anything is, by definition, an act of "violence." If you do not believe a fetus to have "life" - then you wouldn't be able to kill it, would you? That would negate the use of the word "violence." I honestly don't know how i can rephrase this again for you. It seems rather clear-cut to me.

Gavisi

12-21-2007, 12:43 PM

When does a fetus evolve from a mass of living cells to a thinking being? If there's a point when it's just a mass of cells, what's the difference between killing a fetus and killing a plant? Nothing. Yeah, the fetus has a potential to become a human. But things should be treated as what they are, not what they could be.

ScottH

12-21-2007, 12:45 PM

Now i will say this - i think the father has rights. If the sex was consensual between both parties, and the man wants the child and the mother wants to abort it - i think the man should be able to legally prevent the abortion from taking place, if he is willing to assume 100% custody. The woman consented into the sexual arrangement in the first place - that was her choice. I dont think we should force people to care for children that are unwanted or can not be cared for - but if one party is willing, then we should side on the side of life.

Wow, now this is getting fascinating (and a little personal :-)

Why, if the man can prevent the abortion, should be be required to "assume 100% custody?" Today, once a man has had sex, with or without any a priori discussion/consent about procreation, he has surrendered all reproductive rights to the woman. She may have a child, or may not. If she does, she may have a large share of his income to support it, whether he has anything to do with the child, or not.

Particularly in such impossibly multifaceted issues, I choose to err on the side of liberty, and so I say my view is this:

* Women must have control of their own bodies
* Men should have control of their reproduction (separately from sex)
* A fetus (or any of the other stages of development) should not have "personhood," because it would rob others of their rights (this is the Supreme Court's decision in Roe v. Wade)
* All related law should stem from this basis (i.e., causing the death of an undeveloped human-potential is not murder)

The 2nd of those is quite controversial, but let me explain. Women are gifted with sexual freedom in that being a parent [legally] is never tied with the act of "possibly" having a child. They can abort, surrender a child via adoption or "safe haven" laws (in 48 states), etc. Men, on the other hand, have no rights after they've had sex; if they want a child to come of it, it doesn't matter, they cannot force the issue (and I think this is just, as it is the woman's body).If he does not want a child, but she chooses to have the it, he is "assigned" fatherhood by the laws and must surrender a great deal in support of the child (at her choosing, of course). So, I advocate giving accountability to all parents, by positioning men similarly to women and giving them time to opt-out. I see the consequence of this being fewer unwanted children and fewer single-parent children.

My 2 cents.

Hdier

12-21-2007, 12:51 PM

Yes, it is! Think about all of those poor, defenseless germs! Do you feel for them?

Actually (being serious here; please don't take this as a joke), sometimes I become very saddened :( by the loss of life that I have to cause in order to survive, with the germs and bugs and stuff. Not a constant thing, though! :)

Lucid

12-21-2007, 12:57 PM

Abortion is a tricky issue, and it's one that I can actually see both sides of, although I personally come down firmly on the pro choice side.

However, a fertilized egg is a collection of cells. I'm not sure what the difference between killing a collection of cells (which has the potential to become a human being) and killing a sperm or an egg (which also have the potential to become a human being) is. That's the problem with the potentiality argument.

The problem is that I (and I think medical science) am not sure where atcy collection of cells becomes a human. It's a tricky issue. I'm actually inclined to say at birth, but 3rd term abortions leave me a little cold.

As many people have pointed out forcing a woman to give birth takes away her control over her reproductive system. This violates her rights as a human being as well.

I'm actually fine with saying that killing a bunch of cells in the shower is an act of violence. Violence isn't always bad, IMO. The question is more, when does killing a bunch of cells become a negative act of violence. I'm sorry, but the cells I'm killing with my loofah don't have the same rights as I do and they will be sacrificed for my personal hygiene.

It does seem that men tend to sympathize more with the unborn child than with the mother. I don't think it's men trying to subjugate women or enslave them, I just don't think they understand what it's like to face the possibility of having a baby from the perspective of the female. And I don't think they understand that making a woman have a baby she doesn't want to have is a violation of her rights. Men: how would you feel if someone hijacked your sperm, conceived a child with it, and then forced you to pay child support and then take the kid on weekends??

Having said all that, I do think it's important to be freaking careful and responsible with your reproductive system to avoid being put in a situation like this in the first place. Birth control should be free. It should be available like gum is.

Santana28

12-21-2007, 01:04 PM

Wow, now this is getting fascinating (and a little personal :-)

Why, if the man can prevent the abortion, should be be required to "assume 100% custody?" Today, once a man has had sex, with or without any a priori discussion/consent about procreation, he has surrendered all reproductive rights to the woman. She may have a child, or may not. If she does, she may have a large share of his income to support it, whether he has anything to do with the child, or not.

Particularly in such impossibly multifaceted issues, I choose to err on the side of liberty, and so I say my view is this:

* Women must have control of their own bodies
* Men should have control of their reproduction (separately from sex)
* A fetus (or any of the other stages of development) should not have "personhood," because it would rob others of their rights (this is the Supreme Court's decision in Roe v. Wade)
* All related law should stem from this basis (i.e., causing the death of an undeveloped human-potential is not murder)

The 2nd of those is quite controversial, but let me explain. Women are gifted with sexual freedom in that being a parent [legally] is never tied with the act of "possibly" having a child. They can abort, surrender a child via adoption or "safe haven" laws (in 48 states), etc. Men, on the other hand, have no rights after they've had sex; if they want a child to come of it, it doesn't matter, they cannot force the issue (and I think this is just, as it is the woman's body).If he does not want a child, but she chooses to have the it, he is "assigned" fatherhood by the laws and must surrender a great deal in support of the child (at her choosing, of course). So, I advocate giving accountability to all parents, by positioning men similarly to women and giving them time to opt-out. I see the consequence of this being fewer unwanted children and fewer single-parent children.

My 2 cents.

See... we disagree there. I dont think that man has "surrendered all reproductive rights to the woman." Both people enter into it together - and both are needed for procreation. It is a mutual pact, with accepted consequences. The result is 50/50, although the woman's body will always be her own body and the man does not own 50% of that merely because she is carrying his child. What that means is that she has the final word on this subject.

I am just expressing my personal opinion on this part. Like i said... i dont think anyone should be forced to care for a child they do not want to care for. A woman keeping a child that a man doesn't want is exactly the same - i think she should be able to keep the child if she wishes, but only if she accepts 100% care for it and the man gives up all rights. And the same vice versa. But this is all my "perfect world"... obviously people's feelings change and whatnot. Which is why if we must have ANY form of govt. regulation, then i would implement these standards. But theoretically i dont think the govt has any say whatsoever over what goes on inside a woman's body, and only the father has any right to the results of a pregnancy.

ScottH

12-21-2007, 01:04 PM

Men: how would you feel if someone hijacked your sperm, conceived a child with it, and then forced you to pay child support and then take the kid on weekends??

LOL. <hand raised> OOh, Ooh, I can tell you what it's like!

For what it's worth, birth control is not 100%. The list of issues is long:
* Poorly made condoms
* Burst condoms
* Accidently punctured condoms
* Purposefully punctured condoms
* Improper condom use
* "Chance" pill innefectiveness
* Accidently missed pills
* Purposefully missed pills

Removing all judgement of right/wrong/fault... the fact is, b/c doesn't solve anything (completely).

Santana28

12-21-2007, 01:08 PM

LOL. <hand raised> OOh, Ooh, I can tell you what it's like!

For what it's worth, birth control is not 100%. The list of issues is long:
* Poorly made condoms
* Burst condoms
* Accidently punctured condoms
* Purposefully punctured condoms
* Improper condom use
* "Chance" pill innefectiveness
* Accidently missed pills
* Purposefully missed pills

Removing all judgement of right/wrong/fault... the fact is, b/c doesn't solve anything (completely).

i can attest to this :(

pill failed for me twice. first time resulted in my little boy. 2nd time caused an ectopic pregnancy and resulted in the removal of one of my fallopian tubes.

ScottH

12-21-2007, 01:16 PM

...first time resulted in my little boy. 2nd time caused an ectopic pregnancy and resulted in the removal of one of my fallopian tubes.

Congrats on the little boy (I have one due in a week ;-), but OMG on the ectopic pregnancy. I've read those are amazingly painful. My ENTJ s/o and I thought she had one 8 months ago--glad we were wrong.

Santana28

12-21-2007, 01:25 PM

Congrats on the little boy (I have one due in a week ;-), but OMG on the ectopic pregnancy. I've read those are amazingly painful. My ENTJ s/o and I thought she had one 8 months ago--glad we were wrong.

You know what? I was 10 weeks along and had NO IDEA. In fact, i was still working my very physical job the entire time. Looking back it was kind of obvious i was pregnant (overwhelmingly tired, and nauseous for no good reason)... but i had this odd little twinge feeling in my lower back on one side. It would be a slightly sharp pain every now and then, but nothing horrible.

In fact, when i decided to research my symptoms (i was spotting as well), i figured i had an ectopic and i called my doctor and they freaked when i told them the symptoms and told me to go to the ER right away. Stupid me went to work that night instead, and went to the ER in the morning. When they diagnosed it i had 2 doctors and 3 nurses in my room looking at me going "oh my God, are you telling me you aren't in pain?" Apparantly i was beyond the pain point - i was already partially ruptured, and was bleeding internally. If it had ruptured completely it could have severed one of my arteries and that would have been the end of me without even knowing it. They told me most people are usually rushed in by 6 weeks along in excruciating agony - and i was sitting there only mildly discomforted 10+ weeks along.

So yeah, it wasn't fun. But thankfully i wasn't aware i was pregnant in the first place, so i didnt have to go through the process of realizing that i just lost a baby. It was pretty hard on my husband, however.

ScottH

12-21-2007, 01:45 PM

See... we disagree there. I dont think that man has "surrendered all reproductive rights to the woman."

.....

...Like i said... i dont think anyone should be forced to care for a child they do not want to care for. A woman keeping a child that a man doesn't want is exactly the same - i think she should be able to keep the child if she wishes, but only if she accepts 100% care for it and the man gives up all rights. And the same vice versa.

Actually, I think we do agree. By "...man surrenders all rights..." I mean legal rights. Again, she has options after conception due to her bio advantage (the would-be baby is within her), but she also has options AFTER birth, and he does not. I think once they are similarly situated (after birth), they should be similarly situated legally and enjoy the same rights. I think children would benefit most.

I'm pro choice (in case you couldn't tell ;), because as I said, I always err on the side of liberty. Government and others rights end where my body begins, and I think it should be so for everybody.

stasis

12-21-2007, 02:05 PM

killing is an act of violence.
Not necessarily. But this is beside the point.

Basically, you seem to say that the question of whether abortion is an act of violence is not a relevant one. You seem to say this because "all killing is violent", abortion is killing, and therefore abortion is an act of violence.

If all killing constitutes acts of violence, even the most mundane of human actions - in involving some sort of killing - would be 'acts of violence'. Which would make the observation "abortion is an act of violence" a redundant or meaningless observation in the first place. Subsequently, you called it an illogical point of focus.

But this loose and floppy usage of the term "violence" does not seem to me like it coincides with the meaning that is most widely used, and particularly not with respect to the question of abortion. Your usage precludes such things as: nonviolent action, peace, and civility. The problem with what you're saying here arises in that people who find the "is abortion an act of of violence" question to be meaningful tend to be asking it in appeal to those sorts of things, and therefore tend to regard "violence" in an analogous respect. And so saying something like "all killing is violence, most actions involve killing, and so it's just a matter of what violence is ethical and where" doesn't seem like a useful statement to make.

In other words, I don't think the focus on the term "violence" as applied to the question of abortion tends to be a semantic one. It's not about picking up a dictionary and seeing if the term applies or not. If you look at the original post, you will find that the question is about interpersonal violence. Words like "murder" are being used. This is to be qualitatively distinguished from the "violence" (in your usage) of taking a shower.

When you say this:
Your opinion of the use of violence itself, or the value of what the violence is being directed toward - that is the important question of this matter.
I agree with it. But it's a pointless statement to make, and the way you go about making it is invalid. That's all I meant.

Tsuru

12-21-2007, 02:15 PM

ScottH

12-21-2007, 02:24 PM

I'm pretty tired of abortion debates (I've done them so many times -_-), but I'll say much of the battle is a struggle for control of the semantics. If you call it an "unborn child" right from the get-go you've already got a foothold if that implicit premise isn't immediately contested. Before asking if killing an unborn child is an act of violence, you need to ask when a fertilized egg becomes a person (aka a "child") to begin with.

Great points. But I'd call it something more like a battle over fallacies, appeals to emotion, etc. Words like "murder" and "unborn child" are intended to slip premises by the recipient unchallenged.

These days, it's pretty clear what the "law" has decided for the status quo: the Supreme Court says it's not a child until birth, not a person at all, yet some other lawmakers have gotten a bit out of sync allowing a "non-person"s death to constitute murder.

Hdier

12-21-2007, 02:44 PM

However, a fertilized egg is a collection of cells. I'm not sure what the difference between killing a collection of cells (which has the potential to become a human being) and killing a sperm or an egg (which also have the potential to become a human being) is. That's the problem with the potentiality argument.

You'd be correct if it weren't for one flaw: The fact that a fertilized egg almost always (disregarding anything that humans do, such as abortion) grows into a child, while the majority of sperm cells never fertilize an egg, (I think that there is about a million sperm per ejaculation) and the majority of egg cells never become fertilized. Thus, they have far less potential.

I'm pretty tired of abortion debates (I've done them so many times -_-), but I'll say much of the battle is a struggle for control of the semantics. If you call it an "unborn child" right from the get-go you've already got a foothold if that implicit premise isn't immediately contested. Before asking if killing an unborn child is an act of violence, you need to ask when a fertilized egg becomes a person (aka a "child") to begin with.

Arguing semantics can be fun!

ScottH

12-21-2007, 04:10 PM

You'd be correct if it weren't for one flaw: The fact that a fertilized egg almost always (disregarding anything that humans do, such as abortion) grows into a child, while the majority of sperm cells never fertilize an egg, (I think that there is about a million sperm per ejaculation) and the majority of egg cells never become fertilized. Thus, they have far less potential.

Arguing semantics can be fun!

Actually, it's estimated that up to 50% of fertilized eggs are lost before the woman knows she's pregnant.

Of the remainder, 15-20% end in miscarriage.

Just to be ridiculous, your premise seems to be related to chances of becoming an autonomous person, so let's say a person isn't autonomous until they can care for themselves. Can we poke a guess at age 12 or so?

About 10% of children don't live past 12, worldwide.

Women only shed about 360 eggs in their reproductive life, yet men shed hundreds of millions of sperm, do eggs deserve more rights because they are each more likely to be fertilized and make it to 12 years old?

:-)

Lucid

12-21-2007, 04:47 PM

For what it's worth, birth control is not 100%. The list of issues is long:
* Poorly made condoms
* Burst condoms
* Accidently punctured condoms
* Purposefully punctured condoms
* Improper condom use
* "Chance" pill innefectiveness
* Accidently missed pills
* Purposefully missed pills

Removing all judgement of right/wrong/fault... the fact is, b/c doesn't solve anything (completely).

I think you're misunderstanding my argument. Or I'm misunderstanding yours.
Birth control is not 100% effective or reliable. I'm not saying it's a perfect solution or that when it fails it's because people were necessarily irresponsible. I guess that since I'm arguing to keep abortions legal but increase the availability of and education about birth control, I'm not sure what point you're trying to make by bringing this up.

LOL. <hand raised> OOh, Ooh, I can tell you what it's like!

Yes, it happens, that's why I used that example. It's the closest thing I can think of to an accidental pregnancy from a female's point of view. Except that men don't have to go through any of the physical process of the pregnancy and labor.
Incidentally, most of the men I've known who've had it happen to them are pro-choice.

You'd be correct if it weren't for one flaw: The fact that a fertilized egg almost always (disregarding anything that humans do, such as abortion) grows into a child, while the majority of sperm cells never fertilize an egg, (I think that there is about a million sperm per ejaculation) and the majority of egg cells never become fertilized. Thus, they have far less potential.

You're drawing a distinction where there is none. That's my point in fact: that if you say that killing a collection of cells is wrong because it has the potential to become a child, you must then expand that argument to include anything with the potential to become a child. This includes sperm and unfertilized eggs. You're saying that a fertilized egg has more potential, but if you're arguing about potential you can't base it on the "amount" of potential. By that logic, it would be more acceptable to abort a fetus with health problems but which has the potential to survive, than a fetus without health problems and so has a greater potential to survive. I think that, with the exception of cases where carrying an unhealthy fetus to term might put the life of the mother at risk, very few people would make that argument.

Hypomanic

12-21-2007, 05:18 PM

Abortion should be up to the parents.

If a women was raped, no she should not have to carry the rapist's baby. That's sick.

If a person dislikes abortion, good, then they have a right to dislike it. If someone chooses to have an abortion, good, we have the technology, that's their choice.

Some people are too young, too poor, or too careless to have a baby in some cases so they know they would not be able to adequately provide for one. In this case abortion is good. People should have the right not to be parents if they are not ready. Accidentally getting pregnant at age 13 is not a prime time for parenthood. I say let the parent make the choice. One way isn't best for everyone.

On another note, the human race is overpopulated as it is and without us the earth would finally be able to replenish itself. That puts it in perspective for me.. death is a natural occurrence. I don't remember being in utero, so I don't think I would have been conscious to know if an abortion was taking place.

If it is made a crime to have an abortion, we'd be putting many women in jail.. that would cost a lot of money and ultimately do a lot of harm. It's already expensive to keep convicts in prison and the prison system is messed up as it is--this would only complicate things. I think it would be inhumane to make this a crime, where the women is punished. That seems cruel. A fetus cannot feel pain... but a women can. It's not right to punish someone for deciding that they're not ready to be a mother.

Santana28

12-21-2007, 09:12 PM

Not necessarily. But this is beside the point.

Basically, you seem to say that the question of whether abortion is an act of violence is not a relevant one. You seem to say this because "all killing is violent", abortion is killing, and therefore abortion is an act of violence.

If all killing constitutes acts of violence, even the most mundane of human actions - in involving some sort of killing - would be 'acts of violence'. Which would make the observation "abortion is an act of violence" a redundant or meaningless observation in the first place. Subsequently, you called it an illogical point of focus.

But this loose and floppy usage of the term "violence" does not seem to me like it coincides with the meaning that is most widely used, and particularly not with respect to the question of abortion. Your usage precludes such things as: nonviolent action, peace, and civility. The problem with what you're saying here arises in that people who find the "is abortion an act of of violence" question to be meaningful tend to be asking it in appeal to those sorts of things, and therefore tend to regard "violence" in an analogous respect. And so saying something like "all killing is violence, most actions involve killing, and so it's just a matter of what violence is ethical and where" doesn't seem like a useful statement to make.

In other words, I don't think the focus on the term "violence" as applied to the question of abortion tends to be a semantic one. It's not about picking up a dictionary and seeing if the term applies or not. If you look at the original post, you will find that the question is about interpersonal violence. Words like "murder" are being used. This is to be qualitatively distinguished from the "violence" (in your usage) of taking a shower.

When you say this:

I agree with it. But it's a pointless statement to make, and the way you go about making it is invalid. That's all I meant.

Listen... if you want to argue that the very definition of the word "Violence" is irrelevant because it is too broad in scope, than thats up to you. I am basing my argument off of the accepted dictionary definition.

How other people interpret the word "violence" is of no concern to me.

The question is whether extinguishing this particular group of cells fits the definition as currently accepted, and clearly it does.

niffer

12-21-2007, 10:06 PM

Hmmm...using that logic, whenever you scratch an itch you are committing an act of violence, in the strictest sense, because you are removing skin cells, causing them to die.

LOLZ.

It may be violence...but I feel that anything I create is disposable, unless I desire to keep it. I don't think anyone's...tortured a fetus before though.

danalaina

12-22-2007, 04:14 AM

stasis

12-22-2007, 08:20 AM

I am basing my argument off of the accepted dictionary definition.
No, you aren't. What you're doing is completely misunderstanding the way the word "violence" is popularly used, both in general and as pertains. Your argument is not only invalid, but it is a non-sequitur.

The question is whether extinguishing this particular group of cells fits the definition as currently accepted, and clearly it does.
No, it isn't. The question is about interpersonal violence. At what point does aborting the fetus become an act of violence (against a person or otherwise socially substantive being); broadly, does it or does it not constitute a form of "murder" at some stage. Is that or is that not essentially what abortionists do. And if so, at what point in development does that become the case.

Arguing that taking a shower amounts to an act of violence is such a contortion of the issue. This is ambiguating a definition to sidestep the meaning of it, and for no apparent reason to begin with. There's no need to do it. Your point can actually be made in a logical manner, without the semantic hocus pocus.

Lucid

12-22-2007, 11:38 AM

If you get an abortion of an otherwise healthy child, that child has to be killed at some point. When a woman gets an abortion she is essentially telling a doctor to commit murder for her. I just think that fact is overlooked when many people pick "the right to choose".

I think someone already pointed this out, but it seems it bears repeating.

Murder is killing illegally. Not just killing. So a soldier fighting in a war who kills a soldier on the other side is not committing murder. Someone killing in self defense is not committing murder. The state killing someone who has been sentenced to death is not committing murder. An abortion doctor killing a fetus in the first 2 trimesters of a pregnancy is not committing murder. You may still think it's an unfair and unjustified death, but it's not murder.

In addition, I would say that a fetus is not a child. In my opinion it's only technically alive... kind of how a plant is alive.

Arguing from potential, is, as I've already mentioned, pointless and illogical. The state does not incarcerate people who have the potential to commit a crime. Arguing that it's a potential child and should have rights, is really making a huge exception to the actions our society takes for potential.

What I find interesting is that several of the people who have argued for personal freedoms and who are against government legislating every aspect of our lives are some of the ones who are arguing to outlaw abortion. To me, this seems like a contradiction, since outlawing abortion is the government making laws about my uterus and what I can and can't do with it. And taking away my personal freedoms to make decisions about my reproductive system.

The question is whether extinguishing this particular group of cells fits the definition as currently accepted, and clearly it does.

I'd say that it only fits that definition (whatever it may be) if you also classify removing a tumor, a kidney or an appendix as violence. The only difference between a tumor, kidney or appendix and a fetus is that it does not have any potential to become a human being. Please see above for my stance on the potentiality argument.

Santana28

12-22-2007, 12:16 PM

No, you aren't. What you're doing is completely misunderstanding the way the word "violence" is popularly used, both in general and as pertains. Your argument is not only invalid, but it is a non-sequitur.

No, it isn't. The question is about interpersonal violence. At what point does aborting the fetus become an act of violence (against a person or otherwise socially substantive being); broadly, does it or does it not constitute a form of "murder" at some stage. Is that or is that not essentially what abortionists do. And if so, at what point in development does that become the case.

Arguing that taking a shower amounts to an act of violence is such a contortion of the issue. This is ambiguating a definition to sidestep the meaning of it, and for no apparent reason to begin with. There's no need to do it. Your point can actually be made in a logical manner, without the semantic hocus pocus.

Again, you're arguing the way people interpret and use the word violence, and not the definition of violence. I'm not. I just noticed you're in INTP. Perhaps thats the problem with why you are not processing what i'm trying to tell you.

From my Dictionary:

Violence:
-Behavior involving physical force intended to hurt, damage, or kill someone or something.
-strength of emotion or an unpleasant or destructive natural force
-LAW the unlawful exercise of physical force or intimidation by the exhibition of such force

phrase : "do violence to" = to damage or physically affect

If you want to do without semantics - then change the question. I have already fully stated that i am not arguing anything other than THE ACTUAL QUESTION, as it is provided. Its a rather cut and dry question. I am not concerned with your definition of the word violence, nor anyone else's. I am arguing ONE question, and you are arguing something philosophical related to whether abortion is "bad" or not. Thats fine - but its not what i've been talking about at all, and you're still arguing with me. Change the wording of the question, because as it is asked it is very cut and dry and i feel that i've proved my point and it no longer needs to be argued with you. You don't seem very willing to step into my mindset and look at it from this perspective (the actual one being argued). Sorry.

stasis

12-22-2007, 01:21 PM

From my Dictionary:
If a police officer were to ask you the question Are you a killer?, I imagine then that you would answer him in the affirmative. Because of course "the definition" of 'to kill' includes the ending of any life and therefore, you would conclude, the officer is probably interested in whether or not you had a shower that morning. Or perhaps you'll tell him that his question isn't important in the first place because, obviously, you are a killer - and so is he?

If you want to do without semantics - then change the question. I have already fully stated that i am not arguing anything other than THE ACTUAL QUESTION, as it is provided. Its a rather cut and dry question.
Did you read the original post? What can we infer from the contents of the original post about what is meant by the question in the title of the thread? Does a semantic argument address the product of that inference? If not, can it truly be said that the semantic argument is an argument in line with "the actual question," or would it be more likely that such an argument is non-sequitur?

I'm not having difficulty seeing your perspective, it's just that your perspective is not oriented to what is salient and this causes the corresponding argument to be irrelevant. A point about hyperbole often contaminating this issue could be salvaged from your argument, but that's about all. And, ironically, that wouldn't actually address the question either.

You shouldn't feel obliged to debate the sub-issue with me if you do not wish it, though. I myself do not find it to be important.

Mechanical Messiah

12-22-2007, 07:16 PM

"Violence" is a characterization. As such, this IS an arguement about semantics.

Look in three dictionaries, and you'll get three different definitions. They'll be close... but there'll be room for interpretation. And they'll differ still (however slightly) from the popular use of the word... which will differ still from every individual's use/definition of the word.

And ya' know what- words are defined... with words! Each of which will be defined with similar ambiguity. All of our language, communication, and even thoughts are based on a myriad of unspoken assumptions. Sometimes these assumptions aren't obvious or necessarily important (unless one really feels like arguing over whether or not 1+1 actually equals 2)... but sometimes these underlying assumptions ARE the arguement.

ScottH

12-22-2007, 08:31 PM

Arguing from potential, is, as I've already mentioned, pointless and illogical. The state does not incarcerate people who have the potential to commit a crime. Arguing that it's a potential child and should have rights, is really making a huge exception to the actions our society takes for potential.

Arguing about "potentiality" seems to have gotten this argument nowhere. Frankly, it makes clear to me the slippery slope that subtle redefinitions can cause, such as from fetus to citizen.

On another note, Lucid, most states do indeed incarcerate people who they deem to have the potential to commit crime. The laws came in vogue in the 90's, and they're called civil commitment laws. They're civil laws--as apposed to criminal--, but they assess the "viability" of a person committing a violent crime (not the likelihood, for nobody would claim to be able to reliably do that), and then lock them up in state prisons for an undetermined (often infinite) amount of time.

By the flawed login upon which rests those laws--and some of this thread, all people should be incarcerated for having the potential to commit a crime against a potential person, or at least having the potential of failing to commit said crime and thus begetting another human being with the potential to...

OneBadMother

12-22-2007, 08:44 PM

The way you phrased this question is pretty loaded. Are you trying to ask if removing a viable fetus from a woman's womb is ethically wrong? Maybe so. But in certain situations, it would also be pretty unfair to the woman to force her to keep the child (for instance, if she does not have the means to provide for it, or if she was raped, or if it can technically come to term, but she'd have to see it die five seconds later). That's not to say there aren't alternatives, such as giving it up for adoption, but it's a matter of looking at motive. It's understandable that under the circumstances they would do it, much like with self-defense.

Lucid

12-22-2007, 11:57 PM

On another note, Lucid, most states do indeed incarcerate people who they deem to have the potential to commit crime. The laws came in vogue in the 90's, and they're called civil commitment laws. They're civil laws--as apposed to criminal--, but they assess the "viability" of a person committing a violent crime (not the likelihood, for nobody would claim to be able to reliably do that), and then lock them up in state prisons for an undetermined (often infinite) amount of time.

You raise a good point. I was unaware of these laws and I am inclined to think they are unconstitutional. I'll have to find out more about it.

Arguing about "potentiality" seems to have gotten this argument nowhere.

That's what I'm saying :)

Arguing from potential, is, as I've already mentioned, pointless and illogical.

Santana28

12-23-2007, 12:01 AM

I think this entire thread has proven one point - it is unfair to impose laws based on a single definition onto an entire country of people who all harbor their own opinions of the topic based on their own interpretation of the subjects in question.

Stasis - finally you respond from my perspective - and you are correct. I wasn't arguing the content of the first post at all. I was answering the question as it was posed in the subject line. Thats all.

Of course... you keep trying to point out that i'm incorrect in my assertions, and i keep trying to point out that you're asking the wrong questions...

INTroJect

12-23-2007, 02:20 AM

Im a broken condom.

:)

Hdier

12-23-2007, 09:06 AM

The Rose

12-23-2007, 10:59 AM

I believe that as soon as the egg and sperm unite, a human being with a living soul and spirit is formed, so in my opinion, killing said unborn child would be an act of violence against a human being made in the image of God.

(Perhaps fertilization needs to occur first - I'm not clear on that.)

Jezebel

12-23-2007, 11:03 AM

I wasn't arguing the content of the first post at all. I was answering the question as it was posed in the subject line.

What's the point of answering the subject line of the thread while ignoring the OP where rocksteady further clarified what he was asking? What insight do you think we gain from doing such a thing?

Topic Title: Is killing an unborn child an act of violence?
my real question is this, at what point does a fetus get granted it's human rights, including the right not to be murdered?

you keep trying to point out that i'm incorrect in my assertions

You are. I've never heard of anyone using 'violence' with such a broad misinterpretation of the definition before. Violence is not synonymous with 'killing any living substance'. Even if that was a valid definition of the term, you still aren't using it in context of the question being asked. When someone uses a word, it is pointless to go to the dictionary and apply whichever meaning of the definition you want to it. Just because you can back up the definition you want to use with something you found in the dictionary does not mean you are using it in the right way.

This is relevant to point out in this thread because you are asserting that the question being asked in the subject line is irrelevant. It is not irrelevant. You are just applying the wrong meaning to it while ignoring the clarification provided in the original post.

i keep trying to point out that you're asking the wrong questions...

It looks like the questions he is asking lines up perfectly with the meaning of the question as it was used in the original post:

The question is about interpersonal violence. At what point does aborting the fetus become an act of violence (against a person or otherwise socially substantive being); broadly, does it or does it not constitute a form of "murder" at some stage. Is that or is that not essentially what abortionists do. And if so, at what point in development does that become the case.

my real question is this, at what point does a fetus get granted it's human rights, including the right not to be murdered?

However, I don't see how taking the subject line out of context and applying broad definitions to the word 'violence' is asking the right questions.

Santana28

12-23-2007, 11:13 AM

then what is the problem with redefining the question to something more specific, like "is aborting a viable fetus an immoral thing to do?" etc.

a question was asked - i answered it as it was asked. if someone meant something other than that which was asked, then they should clarify and restate their question.

what i was trying to point out is that the question as it was posed is too broad to be answered effectively - my answer was just as correct as everyone else's answer.

If you are worried about an ethical question, then pose one. If you are looking to answer a legal question, then ask one. The question as asked is either TOO BROAD to be answered from an interpretive perspective, or it is too narrow to be answered in any other way than the one i answered.

Jezebel

12-23-2007, 11:44 AM

then what is the problem with redefining the question to something more specific, like "is aborting a viable fetus an immoral thing to do?" etc.
The intent of the question was clarified in the original post:

my real question is this, at what point does a fetus get granted it's human rights, including the right not to be murdered?

And then stasis went on further to clarify how the word violence tied into the question as it was used in the original post:
The question is about interpersonal violence. At what point does aborting the fetus become an act of violence (against a person or otherwise socially substantive being); broadly, does it or does it not constitute a form of "murder" at some stage. Is that or is that not essentially what abortionists do. And if so, at what point in development does that become the case.

a question was asked - i answered it as it was asked. if someone meant something other than that which was asked, then they should clarify and restate their question.
That's the problem. You honed in on the word 'violence', ignored the rest of the post, and said the question asked was irrelevant. It isn't. In context of the original post, it is a meaningful question and clarity is provided in the original post if you look beyond the subject title.

what i was trying to point out is that the question as it was posed is too broad to be answered effectively - my answer was just as correct as everyone else's answer.

If you are worried about an ethical question, then pose one. If you are looking to answer a legal question, then ask one. The question as asked is either TOO BROAD to be answered from an interpretive perspective, or it is too narrow to be answered in any other way than the one i answered.
rocksteady is specifically asking "at what point does a fetus get granted its human rights". He wants to know at what point of development it becomes murder (murder, in this context, being something that applies to another being with human rights) to kill a fetus. Violence, as it is being used in the question of the thread, is referring to the act of murdering a being with human rights.

In other words, at what point does a fetus go from being an unsubstantial lifeform, to a being with human rights where concepts like acts of violence such as murder apply? Arguing by stretching the definition of violence and claiming that even taking a shower could be interpreted as an act of violence because you're killing germs is irrelevant to this question.

Lights

12-23-2007, 04:13 PM

my real question is this, at what point does a fetus get granted it's human rights, including the right not to be murdered?

Hasn't this question been answered numerous times already? There are only three real ways it could be answered.

A: It's a decision that is subjectively determined by individuals. (the right answer)
B: It's scientifically determined by developments that determine level of "humanness"
C: Cultural factors such as religious or societal beliefs determine it.

However, since B and C are factors that an individual considers when making their decision, the right answer is still A. And it doesn't matter if laws are passed or rights are declared, individuals (pregnant women) will always hold the capacity to determine when a fetus has the right to live or not. Call it "murder" or "violence" if you want to, but those terms are purely subjective. So the question is never when a fetus has the right to live, but how much do you limit the women's right to choose.

terencec

12-23-2007, 08:14 PM

Hasn't this question been answered numerous times already? There are only three real ways it could be answered.

A: It's a decision that is subjectively determined by individuals. (the right answer)
B: It's scientifically determined by developments that determine level of "humanness"
C: Cultural factors such as religious or societal beliefs determine it.

However, since B and C are factors that an individual considers when making their decision, the right answer is still A. And it doesn't matter if laws are passed or rights are declared, individuals (pregnant women) will always hold the capacity to determine when a fetus has the right to live or not. Call it "murder" or "violence" if you want to, but those terms are purely subjective. So the question is never when a fetus has the right to live, but how much do you limit the women's right to choose.

I will also choose A. If the mother does not want the baby and she knows she will not take care the baby well, it is better for her to decide if she wants the baby or not.

If we force her to have the baby, her child may grow up without good education, parents' love. her child most likely will create a lot problems later for the society. I believe most problems of the children come from the family.

In US, there are many teenages get pregnant accidently. I don't think those teenages have prepared to be good parents.

rocksteady

12-24-2007, 07:43 PM

Rather than argue semantics, as some of you mentioned this post may be an exercise in, I would like to brainstorm solutions.

What do you guys think of a tax on non-life saving abortions, putting a cost on human life? I feel that abortions are horrible after the 1st trimester, I think that should be the cut off date. The market value of an abortion is probably pretty high, but due to federal and state funding, the cost of performing seems to be artificially low. I can't imagine there are a ton of doctors trying to get into the abortion business.

The tax would act as a deterrent, you could still legally have an abortion if you needed one, and less doctors have to kill babies, everyone wins right?

rocksteady added to this post, 4 minutes and 20 seconds later...

Hasn't this question been answered numerous times already? There are only three real ways it could be answered.

A: It's a decision that is subjectively determined by individuals. (the right answer)
B: It's scientifically determined by developments that determine level of "humanness"
C: Cultural factors such as religious or societal beliefs determine it.

However, since B and C are factors that an individual considers when making their decision, the right answer is still A. And it doesn't matter if laws are passed or rights are declared, individuals (pregnant women) will always hold the capacity to determine when a fetus has the right to live or not. Call it "murder" or "violence" if you want to, but those terms are purely subjective. So the question is never when a fetus has the right to live, but how much do you limit the women's right to choose.

We have an answer yes, but it doesn't seem to be the right one, IMHO

There is a lot of subjective opinions thrown into the mix yes, but I think as a society we are capable of coming up with a system that works a little better.

Mechanical Messiah

12-24-2007, 08:55 PM

And perhaps we should 'tax' other rights that make us uncomfortable. Maybe a 'free speech tax' would reduce the incidence of odd hillbilly forum trolls. Perhaps a 'habeas corpus tax' to reduce the incidence of obviously guilty people absconding.

Lights

12-24-2007, 09:05 PM

Rather than argue semantics, as some of you mentioned this post may be an exercise in, I would like to brainstorm solutions.

What do you guys think of a tax on non-life saving abortions, putting a cost on human life? I feel that abortions are horrible after the 1st trimester, I think that should be the cut off date. The market value of an abortion is probably pretty high, but due to federal and state funding, the cost of performing seems to be artificially low. I can't imagine there are a ton of doctors trying to get into the abortion business.

The tax would act as a deterrent, you could still legally have an abortion if you needed one, and less doctors have to kill babies, everyone wins right?

It's a nice thought, as it imposes some form of penalty and makes abortion look less attractive as an option. However, since the majority of abortions are performed on very young women, the cost would probably just be bumped up to the parents of the would be parents. I question the fairness of making them pay for their children's mistakes. In addition, monetary deterrents are usually not very effective. Take tobacco taxes for example.

We have an answer yes, but it doesn't seem to be the right one, IMHO

What is right differs from person to person. Hence why we have the answer that we have. Although, I agree that abortion after the first trimester doesn't sit right with me either. But I'm not going to impose my beliefs on someone else.

There is a lot of subjective opinions thrown into the mix yes, but I think as a society we are capable of coming up with a system that works a little better.

I think the best solution is prevention. If we weren't wasting billions of dollars on Abstinence Only programs in schools, that are statistically proven not only to be ineffective but to foster teen pregnancy, then maybe we could prevent a lot of abortions from occurring. If teenagers and young adults were encouraged to use contraceptives instead of following a backwards traditional policy of telling them not to have sex, then we could undoubtedly keep tens of thousands of unwanted unborn children from even being created. And we wouldn't have to impose our values on anyone, but simply educate people on their options.

I currently live in Idaho where they don't even teach sex ed in schools and the teen pregnancy/abortion rates are some of the highest in the country. It's a rather disgraceful Catch-22 our nation has created with its Conservative policies. Promote abstinence only education (which doesn't work) and shun abortion.

Race

12-24-2007, 09:26 PM

I couldn't agree more. Really, there's no better way to put it.

Lucid

12-24-2007, 09:27 PM

What do you guys think of a tax on non-life saving abortions, putting a cost on human life? I feel that abortions are horrible after the 1st trimester, I think that should be the cut off date. The market value of an abortion is probably pretty high, but due to federal and state funding, the cost of performing seems to be artificially low. I can't imagine there are a ton of doctors trying to get into the abortion business.

The tax would act as a deterrent, you could still legally have an abortion if you needed one, and less doctors have to kill babies, everyone wins right?

Except for the impoverished... who are probably the most likely to need abortions. I'm sorry, but it just seems like a really bad idea to make it so that only the rich can afford to get abortions.

This is an issue I do feel strongly and which I have a reasonable amount of knowledge about, although all second hand. I have a lot of friends who have had abortions, also a lot who have opted to let the pregnancy run to turn and keep the resulting baby.
When I feel strongly about an issue I tend to argue forcefully about it. I mean what follows with respect and I understand that, while the implication that women have abortions casually and that it's convenient or easy is ridiculous to me, I know that no one was actively trying to be offensive. Despite the fact that I feel strongly about this issue, it is one where I actually understand where the other side is coming from (although I disagree), so I feel that it's possible to have a civil discussion about it, without becoming angry or upset or nasty. Sorry if this preface is unnecessary, but arguing with non-INTJs has made me very aware of my somewhat forceful debating style and I'm always a bit paranoid that what I say will be taken poorly. Now, on to the issue.

It seems like you're missing a really important factor here. Most people do not get abortions for fun or just because it's more convenient. I've known several women who've gone through it, both surgically and medically. Each said it was one of the most painful, emotional, horrendous experiences they've ever had. I think you should look into what actually goes into getting an abortion. You say the cost seems artificially low, but have you ever had to pay for one? The cost of an abortion ranges from $350 to $750. This money isn't easy to come up with in 3 months. But the monetary cost isn't the issue. Having an abortion is a horrible thing to go through and I don't think anyone does it lightly.
It's not like getting into unnecessary credit card debt or smoking. There doesn't need to be a tax to act as a deterrent. The procedure and the actuality of what you are doing is deterrent enough.

You're implying that most women who get abortions do so rather casually. You may not have meant it to be, but this argument is rather offensive and, it seems, somewhat uninformed about pregnancy and abortions. No offense, and I may be wrong in that, but you seem to be overlooking a ton of things which are obvious to someone who does know about these things (albeit second hand in my case).

The first, and possibly most important, is that women bond emotionally with the fetus while it is still in the womb. By the 2nd trimester, this bond is pretty strong, making it difficult for most women to give the baby up for adoption once it's born, much less abort the fetus.

The second is the procedure itself.
For a surgical abortion, you get to meet tons of nice anti-abortion activists who stand outside clinics and yell horrible things at you and anyone who goes with you and throw things at you and your car. Doesn't that sound fun to you? Then you sit in a waiting room for about 4 hours being terrified. After that, they take you into an office where the actual procedure is done. Maybe you have to be a female to understand how horrific and scary that procedure actually is (even to think about), and that's why so many men seem to think that women just do it casually. Even though the procedure itself (often) includes anesthetic, the following several days are very painful for the woman. And if something little goes wrong with the procedure it can leave the woman sterile. I have one friend who couldn't have sex for a year after her (somewhat botched) abortion. She tried it once after it had been 10 months and she hemorrhaged and had to go to the hospital. Yeah, that's pretty convenient, huh?

The other abortion option is that you can have it done with a pill. This pill induces a miscarriage and is arguably more painful than the surgical procedure (where at least you get anesthetic), if less invasive and scary. The woman I know who had an abortion this way spent 2 days bleeding in her bathtub and was in the most horrendous pain of her life, she said. Apparently, you can't take any pain killer that might thin your blood because you can bleed to death.

To address your specific problem with 2nd trimester abortions, very few women actually go through with an abortion and very few clinics perform 2nd trimester abortions. Also, it's MUCH more expensive, much more invasive, and more emotionally painful for the woman.

We have an answer yes, but it doesn't seem to be the right one, IMHO

There is a lot of subjective opinions thrown into the mix yes, but I think as a society we are capable of coming up with a system that works a little better.

The problem with abortion is that one entity has to give up their rights. Either the collection of cells (or the potential person, depending on how you look at it), or the woman: An actual person.

I understand that the idea of killing fetuses is an emotionally charged one. So is the idea of stripping an adult of her rights. As I've mentioned previously, many people who are arguing against abortion on this thread have also argued in favor of legalizing both drugs and euthanasia (both of which I'm also in favor of) and all the other things that go with Libertarianism because they don't feel the government should be making laws about what they can do with their bodies.
Suddenly it seems like all that goes out the window in favor of emotional sentimentality about killing this collection of cells, which is not sentient, not autonomous, but which might become a human.

I find the idea of taxing rights to go against everything that defines something as a right and not a privilege.

Also, I think the idea that abortion needs any kind of additional deterrent, especially a monetary deterrent, to be flawed.
I realize you probably had the best of intentions when you brought it up, and I'm not saying that to insult you or put you down. I understand that you were trying to come to a compromise between the two sides of the issue. Unfortunately, because of the nature of the problem and because of the issues at steak here (the right to life for a collection of cells or the right to control one's body and one's life for a woman), I don't think a compromise is possible.

Honestly, I think it would be great if they could some how take a developing fetus and implant it into a surrogate mother who actually wants the child. I know this can be done with pre-fertilized eggs...but I think an actual fetus is another matter.

It's a nice thought, as it imposes some form of penalty and makes abortion look less attractive as an option.

You really think that abortion is an attractive option to begin with???
Men: does castration seem like an attractive option to you? Any time one's reproductive organs (especially if they are internal reproductive organs!! Something many men don't understand is how sensitive a uterus is or a birth canal is.) come into any kind of threat of physical pain or... general unpleasant messing with, it's a HELL of a freaking deterrent!
The idea that so many people think abortion is quick and easy and attractive and can be done without thought or emotional or physical pain is shocking to me.

I think the best solution is prevention. If we weren't wasting billions of dollars on Abstinence Only programs in schools, that are statistically proven not only to be ineffective but to foster teen pregnancy, then maybe we could prevent a lot of abortions from occurring. If teenagers and young adults were encouraged to use contraceptives instead of following a backwards traditional policy of telling them not to have sex, then we could undoubtedly keep tens of thousands of unwanted unborn children from even being created. And we wouldn't have to impose our values on anyone, but simply educate people on their options.

That's actually the best idea so far. Although it won't ever completely alleviate the need for abortions. At least it can reduce it.

terencec

12-25-2007, 01:50 AM

Antares

12-25-2007, 03:29 AM

Yes, that is the best solution. I do think there are more important things (e.g. education) for teenagers to do than have sex everyday. But we still should give them good sex education instead of asking them not to have sex at all. It just does not work.

They teach abstinence everywhere... But people still have sex. I agree as well, that sex education is the best method. Of course, abstinence should be encouraged, but abstinence-only education is not all that effective.

I believe that as soon as the egg and sperm unite, a human being with a living soul and spirit is formed, so in my opinion, killing said unborn child would be an act of violence against a human being made in the image of God.

(Perhaps fertilization needs to occur first - I'm not clear on that.)

Belief (or religion) that has no justification is not valid in an argument (or in this case, a debate), but I respect your opinion. Please specify 'unborn child', though. Do you mean the almost-completely-developed child, the fetus, the embryo or the zygote? An unborn child would identify more with the former two that I've listed, but in you said earlier that you believe the zygote to be worthy of legal protection.

If by 'soul', you mean awareness, feelings etc etc, then it doesn't start developing until after the first trimester, therefore, induced abortion before the development of the overall brain functions causes no pain (based on what I've read. I'm no physician, apparently).

I maintain my opinion that a zygote or embryo =/= human. If given the choice, I'd choose a human over a zygote or embryo any day.

Camelopardalis added to this post, 14 minutes and 17 seconds later...

Rather than argue semantics, as some of you mentioned this post may be an exercise in, I would like to brainstorm solutions.

What do you guys think of a tax on non-life saving abortions, putting a cost on human life? I feel that abortions are horrible after the 1st trimester, I think that should be the cut off date. The market value of an abortion is probably pretty high, but due to federal and state funding, the cost of performing seems to be artificially low. I can't imagine there are a ton of doctors trying to get into the abortion business.

The tax would act as a deterrent, you could still legally have an abortion if you needed one, and less doctors have to kill babies, everyone wins right?

I don't support abortion after the first trimester either, and tax would definitely help reduce late abortions. But there might be some parents who wanted to have the baby, then detected a fatal error. I think later term abortions should depend on the circumstances.

lowtech redneck

12-25-2007, 05:30 AM

And I find most men seem to side with the fetus, which I guess they identify with more than the woman (I have no grounding for saying that, really, it's just a thought).

If I remember correctly, the proportion of men and women who are pro-life or pro-choice is about equal (and that's not even getting into the fact that most people cannot be measured so dichotomously).

Concerning the possibility that outlawing abortions creates unequal rights for adult men and women, it could easily be argued that abortion rights does the same thing. One way in which abortion rights actually causes unequal rights under the law for men is that, in the event of accidental pregnancy, the woman has a choice concerning whether to devote a substantial amount of time and energy toward another human being, while the man can be legally obligated to support a child against his will.

lowtech redneck added to this post, 36 minutes and 37 seconds later...

When I feel strongly about an issue I tend to argue forcefully about it. I mean what follows with respect and I understand that, while the implication that women have abortions casually and that it's convenient or easy is ridiculous to me, I know that no one was actively trying to be offensive. Despite the fact that I feel strongly about this issue, it is one where I actually understand where the other side is coming from (although I disagree), so I feel that it's possible to have a civil discussion about it, without becoming angry or upset or nasty. Sorry if this preface is unnecessary, but arguing with non-INTJs has made me very aware of my somewhat forceful debating style and I'm always a bit paranoid that what I say will be taken poorly.

I understand your concern; I usually don't talk about this issue with other people (either pro-life or pro-choice) because of similar concerns. That, and the fact that thinking about abortions is one of the few things that make me physically ill. Its annoying how most people cannot remove themselves from their emotions long enough to have a civil and substantive debate with other people on controversial issues.

To the issue at hand, I understand that most women don't use abortion simply as an alternative means of birth control, but convenience is a relative term. If a women has an abortion rather than carry a child to term and then give it up to adoption (assuming that the women is fully aware of the emotional ramifications involved in both instances), then abortion is clearly viewed as the relatively "convenient" option by the women in question. As for balancing the rights of a fetus versus the rights of an adult woman, there are two things to keep in mind: first, people who are pro-life view the fetus as equally "human", in the same way an infant or severely retarded adult is considered by most people to be equally as "human" as fully functioning adults. Second, all rights are not created equal. Just as the right to physical liberty is more important than property rights (yes, I know you cannot ultimately have one without the other, I'm referring to the inherent value of these rights), the right to life is more valuable than the right to physical liberty (i.e. being forced to carry a child to term).

...it seems my family has just woken up, I guess I'll have to get back to this conversation another time. Depressing subject to start a Christmas morning with, isn't it?

stasis

12-25-2007, 11:14 AM

Concerning the possibility that outlawing abortions creates unequal rights for adult men and women, it could easily be argued that abortion rights does the same thing. One way in which abortion rights actually causes unequal rights under the law for men is that, in the event of accidental pregnancy, the woman has a choice concerning whether to devote a substantial amount of time and energy toward another human being, while the man can be legally obligated to support a child against his will.
And this is what I'm talking about when I mention the identity of power. Do you realize that argument is actually comparing the maintenance of freedom from self-inflicted financial hardship with the maintenance of freedom from being physically forced to bodily host and then give birth to something? A pregnancy is in no way an equal venture between a man and a woman in the first place. What seems to be so hard for so many men to accept is the idea that they willfully surrender decisionmaking power by impregnating somebody else. They want to retain control over the process at all times, and they end up running right over a woman's ownership of her own body in the process.

If you look carefully at the argument you say is easily made - and that is true, the argument is easily made quite often - you should find that it is properly an argument against the laws governing financial obligation. The essential issue raised by the argument is whether willfully impregnating a woman creates a social contract of some kind. But that this is so often used instead as an argument against a woman's right to abort underscores the sexism of the position. Instead of assailing a law that is purported to be unjust (child support), the purported injustice of that law is cited as a good reason to deny women self-ownership.

Abortion is not a men's rights issue.

Antares

12-25-2007, 12:16 PM

I understand your concern; I usually don't talk about this issue with other people (either pro-life or pro-choice) because of similar concerns. That, and the fact that thinking about abortions is one of the few things that make me physically ill. Its annoying how most people cannot remove themselves from their emotions long enough to have a civil and substantive debate with other people on controversial issues.

Whenever I try to talk about issues like this to others, they almost always lose control. It's frustrating! They then would start insulting me as a person and made me look like a heartless murderer (this is what some from the pro-life camp calls me), my mother especially. My parents would call me extreme when I debate such things with them because my logic almost always wins(you can't use your debate attitude on this subject! People have emotions, live with it!). They would assume things and when I ask them to justify, they would say I'm extreme and probably off my rocker. 'Debates' with my mother have a 99.9% chance of turning into a fight, and she starts every single one of them unless she says something really unfair about me personally. It's hard to keep my temper in check if she's insulting my intelligence and my sanity every step along the way.

lowtech redneck

12-26-2007, 06:37 AM

And this is what I'm talking about when I mention the identity of power. Do you realize that argument is actually comparing the maintenance of freedom from self-inflicted financial hardship with the maintenance of freedom from being physically forced to bodily host and then give birth to something? A pregnancy is in no way an equal venture between a man and a woman in the first place. What seems to be so hard for so many men to accept is the idea that they willfully surrender decisionmaking power by impregnating somebody else. They want to retain control over the process at all times, and they end up running right over a woman's ownership of her own body in the process.

If you look carefully at the argument you say is easily made - and that is true, the argument is easily made quite often - you should find that it is properly an argument against the laws governing financial obligation. The essential issue raised by the argument is whether willfully impregnating a woman creates a social contract of some kind. But that this is so often used instead as an argument against a woman's right to abort underscores the sexism of the position. Instead of assailing a law that is purported to be unjust (child support), the purported injustice of that law is cited as a good reason to deny women self-ownership.

Abortion is not a mens' rights issue.

Fair enough, and yes, I realize the difference between physical liberty and property rights. I drew attention to such a hierarchy of rights myself in my previous post. While you are correct concerning the artificiality of connecting financial legal obligations with abortion rights and comparing the same to the effective (but not intrinsic) inequality of rights that would necessarily result from outlawing abortions, I think you in turn might wish to rethink the whole "freedom from self-inflicted financial hardship" rationale as a means of comparison; except in cases of rape and pedophilia, pregnancy is something that is equally "self-inflicted" between men and women. If such is the rationale for mandating that men financially support children they did not intend to have, that would undermine the basis your pro-choice position (not because the two issues are intrinsically linked, but because such a foundational premise assumes limitations on fundamental rights as a consequence).

The real underlying controversy is simply whether or not a fetus constitutes "human" life, and therefore entitled to legal protections against the termination of its life due to no fault of its own. That is not a matter of women's rights or equality in the intrinsic sense, and I think assuming that people with different opinions share the same assumptions on this issue is a mistake that leads to more conflict than is necessary.

stasis

12-26-2007, 11:18 AM

I think you in turn might wish to rethink the whole "freedom from self-inflicted financial hardship" rationale as a means of comparison; except in cases of rape and pedophilia, pregnancy is something that is equally "self-inflicted" between men and women.
Hmm. I don't think adding the word "self-inflicted" to the comparison, which functions equally well without, actually undermines the rationale. What the word does is softly underscore the poverty of that argument by calling attention to the notion that even if one wants to argue the financial hardship of child support laws to be injustice, that hardship isn't unjust in the same respect that (for example) state and federal taxes can potentially be argued to be unjust. Unlike the latter they are opt-ins, which is ethically significant when dealing with matters of monetary contract in general and mostly meaningless when it comes to dealing with slavery or rape-like bodily traumas. In other words, the only significance of my adding the word to the sentence was to point out 'buyer beware' makes it a weaker argument unto itself, let alone as applied inappropriately as it is to this issue.

The real underlying controversy is simply whether or not a fetus constitutes "human" life, and therefore entitled to legal protections against the termination of its life due to no fault of its own. That is not a matter of women's rights or equality in the intrinsic sense, and I think assuming that people with different opinions share the same assumptions on this issue is a mistake that leads to more conflict than is necessary.
While I would partially agree by saying the above constitutes one of the two salient controversies, I think there is a second which immediately follows from an affirmative to the first. And that would be whether the fetus as "a human life," or what I would tend call something along the lines of 'socially substantive object' in an attempt to distinguish it from the technically similar "human life" of sperm or an eyeball, can nevertheless be considered forcibly parasitic within the unwilling individual; whether or not such a parasitism necessarily provides the pregnant woman with a right (from direct physical conflict perpetuated only by the woman's production) to kill it anyway. This would be bound up in the idea that women have special ethical relationships to their pregnancies by virtue of the interconnected and dependent physicality of those relationships, which, instead of resulting in the nullification of a woman's right to control her body during pregnancy, would empower her with a unique sort of personal control that is not readily applicable anywhere else in society.

Of course, an affirmative in such an argument would chafe the traditional conception of 'maleness' even moreso than the other...

Lucid

12-26-2007, 01:27 PM

As for balancing the rights of a fetus versus the rights of an adult woman, there are two things to keep in mind: first, people who are pro-life view the fetus as equally "human", in the same way an infant or severely retarded adult is considered by most people to be equally as "human" as fully functioning adults.

Yes, I was expressing my view on the rights issue as well as on the unborn child or not issue. I think that whether the fetus is considered a human or not is central to the whole abortion issue.

Second, all rights are not created equal. Just as the right to physical liberty is more important than property rights (yes, I know you cannot ultimately have one without the other, I'm referring to the inherent value of these rights), the right to life is more valuable than the right to physical liberty (i.e. being forced to carry a child to term).

If the right to life is more valuable than the right to physical liberty (being forced to carry a child to term), then why aren't people with healthy kidneys forced to give them up to save the lives of those who need healthy kidneys? If there is the hierarchy of rights you speak of, then the whole process of organ transplants and donation would be a much different issue. As it stands now, people are allowed to let their perfectly healthy and usable organs rot in the ground with the rest of their bodies instead of giving them up to save lives. I'm not saying that this needs to be changed, only that it is a comparable situation where the law is clearly on the side of physical liberty, rather than the right to life. Why should the abortion be different?

Hypomanic

12-27-2007, 12:09 AM

Ah, I believe that I forgot to say that (and I apologize if I did already say this) I believe that if the child would be born into a bad life (the mother hating the baby, being to young, poor, etc.), then abortion should be considered to spare the baby from a childhood of torment and pain.

Yeah. *agrees* :)

I also forgot to mention that if it as been more than three months of pregnancy the baby is a living thing. Aborting after this time will pose a threat to the pregnant and the baby.. therefore it does not seem unreasonable to require one to abort before the third month.

Danisty

12-27-2007, 07:03 PM

I started reading this thread and even had a whole string of quotes I was going to respond to, but I'm to do it that way and I'm sure it's the same debate as the 50 other abortion debates I've participated in. I'm pro-choice and I would have an abortion if I ever got pregnant. I really don't care what anyone thinks about it either. As for the fetus. It's a fetus and when it's born it's a person. Obviously it's living and obviously it's human, but until it's a person, it's pretty much worthless in my opinion.

Question Everything

01-01-2008, 11:06 PM

I think the best solution is prevention. If we weren't wasting billions of dollars on Abstinence Only programs in schools, that are statistically proven not only to be ineffective but to foster teen pregnancy, then maybe we could prevent a lot of abortions from occurring. If teenagers and young adults were encouraged to use contraceptives instead of following a backwards traditional policy of telling them not to have sex, then we could undoubtedly keep tens of thousands of unwanted unborn children from even being created. And we wouldn't have to impose our values on anyone, but simply educate people on their options.

I currently live in Idaho where they don't even teach sex ed in schools and the teen pregnancy/abortion rates are some of the highest in the country. It's a rather disgraceful Catch-22 our nation has created with its Conservative policies. Promote abstinence only education (which doesn't work) and shun abortion.

THANK YOU.

The real underlying controversy is simply whether or not a fetus constitutes "human" life, and therefore entitled to legal protections against the termination of its life due to no fault of its own. That is not a matter of women's rights or equality in the intrinsic sense, and I think assuming that people with different opinions share the same assumptions on this issue is a mistake that leads to more conflict than is necessary.

Only if you're arguing from the perspective of the fetus. To me, it's a question of whether ANYONE-- fetus or already-established, human adult-- has a right to use MY body for their survival. Because I'd argue that even IF it's a human being living in my uterus, I have a right to kick it out, because my body is mine. Already-living adults don't have a right to use my body, and to give a fetus those rights would be to give it more rights than established humans have.

rocksteady

01-02-2008, 01:29 PM

If the right to life is more valuable than the right to physical liberty (being forced to carry a child to term), then why aren't people with healthy kidneys forced to give them up to save the lives of those who need healthy kidneys? If there is the hierarchy of rights you speak of, then the whole process of organ transplants and donation would be a much different issue. As it stands now, people are allowed to let their perfectly healthy and usable organs rot in the ground with the rest of their bodies instead of giving them up to save lives. I'm not saying that this needs to be changed, only that it is a comparable situation where the law is clearly on the side of physical liberty, rather than the right to life. Why should the abortion be different?

Abortion is much different. Organ transplant recipients have usually had a chance to live a life, aborted babies have not. I think this topic should be open for discussion because there are many important philosophical points that a healthy society should have an open debate on.

rocksteady added to this post, 3 minutes and 13 seconds later...

And that would be whether the fetus as "a human life," or what I would tend call something along the lines of 'socially substantive object' in an attempt to distinguish it from the technically similar "human life" of sperm or an eyeball, can nevertheless be considered forcibly parasitic within the unwilling individual; whether or not such a parasitism necessarily provides the pregnant woman with a right (from direct physical conflict perpetuated only by the woman's production) to kill it anyway.

wow, talk about detaching yourself from humanity, do you consider yourself a parasite? I really don't think that is a healthy approach to the " is a fetus considered alive " issue.

Lights

01-02-2008, 02:59 PM

rocksteady

01-02-2008, 03:35 PM

Just out of curiosity, what kind of life do you expect unwanted children to be born into? Shuffling from foster home to foster home and being put in a permanent disadvantage to other children? Or being raised in a home where they aren't wanted and have the potential to be abused?

The world isn't some perfect little place where rights don't contradict each other. No matter how you look at it, you are violating some other right to ensure the right to life. Whether it be the mother's right to choose what to do with her own body or the child's right to have a happy life. Unless you are saying that the right to life supersedes all rights and then you are forced to readdress Lucid's point.

i am aware of this, but I don't think killing is the answer. Do you really think it would be that hard to create a positive envoirment to raise orphans, if we actually put some effort into it? Up to this point, orphans have been an afterthought. Not to mention adoption is always an alternative.

essentially you are saying if a fetus doesn't have a chance at your definition of a good life, they deserve to die. Sorry, I don't agree with that.

Danisty

01-02-2008, 04:28 PM

wow, talk about detaching yourself from humanity, do you consider yourself a parasite? I really don't think that is a healthy approach to the " is a fetus considered alive " issue.I agree that fetuses are parasites and I'm not sure why that's such a horrible view to take. They behave like parasites. I don't consider myself a parasite and I can't figure out why I should. I'm not a fetus.

Just out of curiosity, what kind of life do you expect unwanted children to be born into? Shuffling from foster home to foster home and being put in a permanent disadvantage to other children? Or being raised in a home where they aren't wanted and have the potential to be abused?

The world isn't some perfect little place where rights don't contradict each other. No matter how you look at it, you are violating some other right to ensure the right to life. Whether it be the mother's right to choose what to do with her own body or the child's right to have a happy life. Unless you are saying that the right to life supersedes all rights and then you are forced to readdress Lucid's point.This only works if you believe fetuses have rights.

i am aware of this, but I don't think killing is the answer. Do you really think it would be that hard to create a positive envoirment to raise orphans, if we actually put some effort into it? Up to this point, orphans have been an afterthought. Not to mention adoption is always an alternative.

essentially you are saying if a fetus doesn't have a chance at your definition of a good life, they deserve to die. Sorry, I don't agree with that.Okay, I just need to know, those who feel adoption is always an alternative, why do you only consider the issue to be about raising the child? There is the matter of being pregnant for 9 months and giving birth. Some of us aren't willing to do that.

rocksteady

01-02-2008, 07:30 PM

I'm not a fetus.

and you never were?

Danisty

01-02-2008, 07:41 PM

and you never were?Of course I was a fetus and when I was, I was a parasite. I'm not a fetus now though. I've never been able to understand these arguments that are supposed to appeal to how I was as a fetus. It doesn't bother me that I was a parasite and it doesn't bother me that my mother could have aborted me. If I was aborted, I wouldn't exactly have an opinion and neither would my friends and family because they never would have known me. These kinds of arguments only appeal to emotions. I don't have any emotions about my existence before birth or about any what-ifs. This seems perfectly logical to me and any other point of view seems irrational. I can't really believe there are so many pro-life INTJs. :huh:

Do you care to address my point about pregnancy and child-birth?

Lights

01-02-2008, 10:20 PM

i am aware of this, but I don't think killing is the answer. Do you really think it would be that hard to create a positive envoirment to raise orphans, if we actually put some effort into it? Up to this point, orphans have been an afterthought. Not to mention adoption is always an alternative.

essentially you are saying if a fetus doesn't have a chance at your definition of a good life, they deserve to die. Sorry, I don't agree with that.

Where exactly are you going to get all these homes? A good share of the children who are put up for adoption now, aren't adopted. Do you think the antiabortionists are volunteering to adopt these extra children?

As far as, "is it difficult to create a positive environment for foster children", you damn well bet it is. Look at the statistics. Children who are raised in foster care are far more likely to end up in jail than the general population. Social workers have been working for the last two decades to try to alleviate this problem. Don't fool yourself, it is a very sad and difficult life to grow up knowing that nobody wants you.

Essentially what I am saying is in the real world, you have to set aside your ideals and realize that not everything is black and white. Maybe some day we will be evolved enough as a society that abortion will become a thing of the past but there are essentially two major problems with the right to life ideal in the present.

1. There aren't enough good homes for unwanted children.
2. As long as a fetus is a part of a woman's body you violate her rights by making her carry it when she doesn't want to.

Until you can solve those issues, you would be imposing your belief that a fetus's right to life is more important than a woman's right to choose or a child's right to happiness.

If you truly believe that a fetus's right to life is so valuable then why don't you dedicate your life to finding children good homes or creating the technology that will allow a fetus to develop outside a woman's body? I'll bout bet that challenge takes the wind right out of your sails. It's easy to complain about ideals and to try to force others to accept your point of view, but I find that when people are challenged to actually put in the work to fight for what they "believe" in then they quickly back down. Are you any different?

Tarrick

01-02-2008, 11:27 PM

1. There aren't enough good homes for unwanted children.
2. As long as a fetus is a part of a woman's body you violate her rights by making her carry it when she doesn't want to.

Until you can solve those issues, you would be imposing your belief that a fetus's right to life is more important than a woman's right to choose or a child's right to happiness.

While I can completely agree on the first point, and furthermore I think that adoption laws should be simplified, the second point isn't quite correct in your thinking.

The umbilical cord is not technically part of the woman's body. According to wikipedia "The umbilical cord develops from the same sperm and ovum from which the placenta and fetus develop, and contains remnants of the yolk sac (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) and allantois (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.). It forms by the fifth week of fetal development, replacing the yolk sac as the source of nutrients for the fetus."

The "fetus" or "unborn child" is in the body of the woman/mother but is not connected to it until around the 5th week.

Also, in no other case is "right to choose" or "right to happiness" (which is not a right, imo) is place above "right to life".

Suppose we were plagued by overpopulation and the world was dying, should we consider "aborting" people for the greater good?

Lights

01-02-2008, 11:44 PM

While I can completely agree on the first point, and furthermore I think that adoption laws should be simplified, the second point isn't quite correct in your thinking.

The umbilical cord is not technically part of the woman's body. According to wikipedia "The umbilical cord develops from the same sperm and ovum from which the placenta and fetus develop, and contains remnants of the yolk sac (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) and allantois (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.). It forms by the fifth week of fetal development, replacing the yolk sac as the source of nutrients for the fetus."

The "fetus" or "unborn child" is in the body of the woman/mother but is not connected to it until around the 5th week.

Can a fetus survive and develop outside of a mother's body? Regardless of the semantics of whether or not it is "part" of the mother's body, it is undeniably dependent upon it. That is what I meant.

Also, in no other case is "right to choose" or "right to happiness" (which is not a right, imo) is place above "right to life".

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

You were saying? Whether or not you believe they are rights is moot. They are rights to some people, and arguably have just as much relevance as the right to life.

Suppose we were plagued by overpopulation and the world was dying, should we consider "aborting" people for the greater good?

Do you even know what is actually happening in the world right now? In some countries, they are practically "aborting" people because of overpopulation, but it hardly gets even a soundbite on CNN or FOX. Hell, a war for resources like the one in Iraq demonstrates how we can devalue life on a whim when it comes to maintaining our own way of life. And I don't see anyone running off to Ethiopia to tend to all the AIDs infected, starving children being raised by their grandparents because their parents have died off. I guess right to life only has to do with quantity of life and not quality. If people really believed in the "right to life" as they suggest, then I think their priorities are screwed up.

Do we believe in preventing the creation of these children? To the contrary we send the Pope to Mexico City, one of the most overpopulated cities on earth, and have him tell people not to use contraceptives, we go to Africa and teach the people there that condoms are ineffective at preventing the spread of AIDs and seldom prevent pregnancy, and we are teaching highly ineffective abstinence only programs here in the USA. The last six years have been great! :rolleyes:

I wonder how well its working in stopping our population problems and stopping abortions. My guess is it is having the opposite effect, and more children are being created and aborted (if not infected with HIV) as a result.

Danisty

01-03-2008, 11:43 AM

Also, in no other case is "right to choose" or "right to happiness" (which is not a right, imo) is place above "right to life".What about the mother's right to life? I can tell you for certain that if I were literally forced to carry a pregnancy to term and give birth, it would kill me. I would be an absolutely hollow and broken person and more than likely would end my life. Don't I have a right to emotional, mental, and physical health?

Suppose we were plagued by overpopulation and the world was dying, should we consider "aborting" people for the greater good?I don't think we should force anyone to abort, but if people want to abort, it does help the problem that we are already having now.

Can a fetus survive and develop outside of a mother's body? Regardless of the semantics of whether or not it is "part" of the mother's body, it is undeniably dependent upon it. That is what I meant.Honestly, I don't see how this isn't obvious. A fetus is living inside of a woman and taking nutrients and such from her.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."I suppose there are some people out there that would argue that women aren't created equal to men. :rolleyes:

Do you even know what is actually happening in the world right now? In some countries, they are practically "aborting" people because of overpopulation, but it hardly gets even a soundbite on CNN or FOX. Hell, a war for resources like the one in Iraq demonstrates how we can devalue life on a whim when it comes to maintaining our own way of life. And I don't see anyone running off to Ethiopia to tend to all the AIDs infected, starving children being raised by their grandparents because their parents have died off. I guess right to life only has to do with quantity of life and not quality. If people really believed in the "right to life" as they suggest, then I think their priorities are screwed up.

Do we believe in preventing the creation of these children? To the contrary we send the Pope to Mexico City, one of the most overpopulated cities on earth, and have him tell people not to use contraceptives, we go to Africa and teach the people there that condoms are ineffective at preventing the spread of AIDs and seldom prevent pregnancy, and we are teaching highly ineffective abstinence only programs here in the USA. The last six years have been great! :rolleyes:

I wonder how well its working in stopping our population problems and stopping abortions. My guess is it is having the opposite effect, and more children are being created and aborted (if not infected with HIV) as a result.My experience has been that pro-lifers only care about unborn children. Once they're born, everyone disappears.

Antares

01-04-2008, 01:57 AM

My experience has been that pro-lifers only care about unborn children. Once they're born, everyone disappears.

Because it's generally accepted that killing a baby is murder, but it's not universally accepted that unborn children have rights, therefore their arguments have to do with only unborn children. I'm currently watching this argument to see where I can make any inputs, but the pro-choicers are making a good progress w/o me :)

Camelopardalis added to this post, 5 minutes and 13 seconds later...

Suppose we were plagued by overpopulation and the world was dying, should we consider "aborting" people for the greater good?

No one on the pro-choice camp suggested that. The main reason it's called pro-choice is because it supports a woman's right to choose whether or not she wants to carry the unborn child to term, not abortion, so I don't see the purpose of you making this point. What you said there is irrelevant to the argument.

Abortion is much different. Organ transplant recipients have usually had a chance to live a life, aborted babies have not. I think this topic should be open for discussion because there are many important philosophical points that a healthy society should have an open debate on.

I think Lucid was comparing the organ donater to the mother. Both had to give up a part of themselves for the life of another. The donater loses an organ and the mother forced to carry the child will lose whatever it is that she wanted to keep by wanting abortion. The donater helps the patient survive while the mother keeps the child alive by sacrificing some of the things that hold some meaning to her.

Danisty

01-04-2008, 06:45 AM

Because it's generally accepted that killing a baby is murder, but it's not universally accepted that unborn children have rights, therefore their arguments have to do with only unborn children. I'm currently watching this argument to see where I can make any inputs, but the pro-choicers are making a good progress w/o me :)It's not just about their arguments though. It's about their actions too. They seem to have endless time and energy to put forth in fighting abortion, but when unwanted children are born, they can't be bothered to adopt them or support the families who were convinced to bring a child into the world that they can't take care of. The only solutions I've seen implemented are ones which take care of the mother while she's pregnant and for a very short period of time after she gives birth. What about 5 years down the road when she has no money or family to help her? That's when the pro-lifers start complaining about welfare and can't understand why people aren't fit parents. :rolleyes:

rwyatt365

01-04-2008, 07:03 AM

It's not just about their arguments though. It's about their actions too. They seem to have endless time and energy to put forth in fighting abortion, but when unwanted children are born, they can't be bothered to adopt them or support the families who were convinced to bring a child into the world that they can't take care of. The only solutions I've seen implemented are ones which take care of the mother while she's pregnant and for a very short period of time after she gives birth. What about 5 years down the road when she has no money or family to help her? That's when the pro-lifers start complaining about welfare and can't understand why people aren't fit parents. :rolleyes:
Danisty, while some of your opinions I don't agree with (and that's pretty immaterial) I do agree with you when it comes to the typical pro-life "disconnect" after the birth of the child they fought so hard to protect.

It would seem that if life is so precious, where are they 1 week, 1 month, or 10 years after that child has been born? I would like to see more post-birth support from that camp and less pre-birth angst - if a fetus is a person, isn't a person a person too?

Blendy

01-04-2008, 10:16 PM

Suppose we were plagued by overpopulation and the world was dying, should we consider "aborting" people for the greater good?

Actually, world overpopulation is a huge and ever-growing problem. And yes, I think abortion (elective, of course) is an essential part of dealing with this problem, and indeed serves "the greater good".

AntimonyLegault

01-05-2008, 12:00 AM

I've heard of abortion doctors being murdered for this. Although I suppose it's an act of violence, the mother could choose to lose it on her own (I know lots of people do this); thusly making less people complain about the issue (I think if they're that desperate to 'not have a baby' we have little say in the outcome).

Lucid

01-07-2008, 12:28 PM

Abortion is much different. Organ transplant recipients have usually had a chance to live a life, aborted babies have not. I think this topic should be open for discussion because there are many important philosophical points that a healthy society should have an open debate on.

I'm not sure I see the argument of "fetuses never had a chance and organ transplant recipients have" as being valid. In my opinion it could be used just as easily to argue for abortion. Either way, the point is to argue about a hierarchy of rights. Why should a fetus have more rights than a full grown human? Why should a fetus have more of a right to life than a full grown human? Perhaps that's the question at the center of the matter: Why should the fetus have more rights than the mother?

Which topic do you think should be open to debate on? I'm a little confused by that part of your post. I never intended to say that any topic shouldn't be discussed or debated. If I somehow gave you that impression, then I apologize.

i am aware of this, but I don't think killing is the answer. Do you really think it would be that hard to create a positive envoirment to raise orphans, if we actually put some effort into it? Up to this point, orphans have been an afterthought. Not to mention adoption is always an alternative.

essentially you are saying if a fetus doesn't have a chance at your definition of a good life, they deserve to die. Sorry, I don't agree with that.

With respect, I'm not sure you have a good idea of how bad thing can get and how horrible the lives of some children are.

Do you really think it would be that hard to create a positive envoirment to raise orphans

Apparently it is. Keep reading.

They seem to have endless time and energy to put forth in fighting abortion, but when unwanted children are born, they can't be bothered to adopt them or support the families who were convinced to bring a child into the world that they can't take care of. The only solutions I've seen implemented are ones which take care of the mother while she's pregnant and for a very short period of time after she gives birth. What about 5 years down the road when she has no money or family to help her? That's when the pro-lifers start complaining about welfare and can't understand why people aren't fit parents. :rolleyes:

Yes, I think this is a really good point. People get all up in arms about abortion, but look at the life most unwanted children are going to lead. Where were those people when these things happened?

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Good thing those kids weren't aborted, huh?

I just can't see how giving fetuses more rights than full grown adults makes any sense. And I don't understand why there are so many more people who get all up in arms over abortion than there are who give more than an idle passing glance at the kinds of atrocities above. I've got some more great stories like the ones above (only worse!) if you want more. There were some I decided not to post links to because they were especially horrible.
If you want to save a child's life maybe it's best to start with ACTUAL children, not just potential ones.

I fail to see how a surgical operation where the fetus is killed painlessly and before it is even aware is so horrific when compared to some of the stuff that happens to children.

Regarding 2nd term abortions:

I have a friend who's had a 2nd term abortion. When she got pregnant she was a meth addict living with a boyfriend who frequently beat the crap out of her, raped her, and wouldn't let her leave the house. The reason her abortion happened in the 2nd term was that it was several months before she knew she was pregnant. When women don't eat they stop menstruating. So her cycle was pretty irregular and being a drug addict does some weird things to your body anyway. So yeah, she was smoking dope the entire time she was pregnant (because she didn't know) and then terminated the pregnancy as soon as she found out. But if you want to tell me that she should have had that baby... I'm sorry but I cannot agree.

Incidentally, she managed to get out of the abusive relationship, get clean, and now she works as a loan officer in a bank, lives in a nice house in the suburbs, and is happily married with two healthy children. I doubt this would have been possible if you added a child to the already crappy state of affairs that was her life when she got pregnant the first time.

Danisty

01-07-2008, 03:54 PM

Regarding 2nd term abortions:

I have a friend who's had a 2nd term abortion. When she got pregnant she was a meth addict living with a boyfriend who frequently beat the crap out of her, raped her, and wouldn't let her leave the house. The reason her abortion happened in the 2nd term was that it was several months before she knew she was pregnant. When women don't eat they stop menstruating. So her cycle was pretty irregular and being a drug addict does some weird things to your body anyway. So yeah, she was smoking dope the entire time she was pregnant (because she didn't know) and then terminated the pregnancy as soon as she found out. But if you want to tell me that she should have had that baby... I'm sorry but I cannot agree.

Incidentally, she managed to get out of the abusive relationship, get clean, and now she works as a loan officer in a bank, lives in a nice house in the suburbs, and is happily married with two healthy children. I doubt this would have been possible if you added a child to the already crappy state of affairs that was her life when she got pregnant the first time.I have a friend who had a 2nd term abortion also. She didn't know she was pregnant because she never stopped having her period.

Also, I've been thinking about those women who are on birth control that practically stops your period. How are they supposed to know that their birth control failed? If you're not expecting a period, not having one doesn't come as much of a surprise.

Antares

04-11-2008, 01:15 AM

I have a friend who had a 2nd term abortion also. She didn't know she was pregnant because she never stopped having her period.

Also, I've been thinking about those women who are on birth control that practically stops your period. How are they supposed to know that their birth control failed? If you're not expecting a period, not having one doesn't come as much of a surprise.

Whoa- that's biologically possible? I never knew; but I've heard on the news that a teenage girl (never had sex ed, never knew about pregnancy or childbirth etc) got pregnant; her mother was complaining about how 'fat' she was becoming. Apparently, she wasn't that 'apparent' as she was only 'fat'. Then when she was due, she gave birth to a baby girl on a balcony; and in her panic, threw the baby out the window.

EsoteriEccentri

04-11-2008, 03:08 AM

I've heard it said that you're not actually killing the "baby" - you're just taking it out of the mother's body and giving it a fair chance to survive on its own. The mother shouldn't have to be forced to be a human incubator and ruin her own life and that of the child's
Of course, you do actually kill it before it comes out - but that could be considered an act of mercy to spare it from a worse death outside.

I think abortion is in most cases right.
Not only does it help keep the population down, it also helps create more children into happy loving homes, who are probably more well off because the mother has had a chance to go out and do something with her life, and most importantly - a home where they are wanted.
And everyone makes mistakes. I'm not saying I don't blame the mother but there are so many reasons why she could have gotten pregnant. Contraception could have failed or she could have been stressed and depressed and done something stupid. Everyone does stupid things occasionally, she shouldn't have to have a life sentence for it. Besides - it's just as much the father's fault as hers.

I believe a fetus gains its rights as a human as soon as it is born. Before that it is part of the mother. Being born signals its separation from the mother and sees it begin life as it's own being.

SmileyMan

04-11-2008, 08:10 AM

ShaiGar

04-11-2008, 08:38 AM

It's ending a life. Killing an unborn child. Murder

So is stepping on an ant. If you want to do it, just do it.

sriv

04-11-2008, 07:17 PM

The parents did not sacrafice enough for the child's life to be meaningful. Trash em. I'm pro-choice.

notoppings

04-11-2008, 09:46 PM

I have plenty of sisters so I believe in choice, but I was also hurt by choice. When my soon to be wife informed me 3 months after the fact, that she had aborted our baby, because she didn't want to get married while showing, I was floored. We had talked several times about kids we were financially sound no problems. I wasn't consulted by her at all, I felt betrayed. This felt to selfish, for me it was over no marriage no way. My response may seem petty to some but I felt that at the very least she should have told me about her choice so I could have had a chance to offer alternatives (delay wedding and such) but to not have been consulted at all, to hurtfull by far.

Antares

04-11-2008, 09:49 PM

Pro-choice. An embryo dying does in most cases cause less suffering than if it had lived.

Also, I believe that if a woman wants the child from a surprise-pregnancy while the man doesn't, then the woman shouldn't be able to demand economic support from the man.

This is how I think it should be done;

If the woman wants to keep the child but the man doesn't, but the woman insists (it's her body), then the man shouldn't have to bear any responsibility. If the man wants the child but the woman doesn't, the woman still has to right to abort; it's still her body. But if the man wants the child and the woman doesn't; but she's willing to give birth out of respect to the man's preferences, then she shouldn't have any responsibility over the child.

EsoteriEccentri

04-13-2008, 05:06 AM

This is how I think it should be done;

If the woman wants to keep the child but the man doesn't, but the woman insists (it's her body), then the man shouldn't have to bear any responsibility. If the man wants the child but the woman doesn't, the woman still has to right to abort; it's still her body. But if the man wants the child and the woman doesn't; but she's willing to give birth out of respect to the man's preferences, then she shouldn't have any responsibility over the child.

It's not about the mother so much as about the CHILD. Child benefits are to take money away from the man who could be a complete slut that gets women pregnant when they're vulnerable, and then just says he doesn't want the baby and gets away scott free. The mother might not agree with abortion so she'd be stuck with the child and couldn't get any financial support. Even if he's not like that, the purpose is still to take money away from the father and give it to the mother to buy baby food and clothes.
It's the man's choice if he comes to visit the child, it already is. But he should always have to pay child support.

I think it's different with the man wanting a child but the mother not, as the mother is the one that has to carry and give birth to it, and support it for at least eighteen years if the man backs out and she doesn't like the idea of adoption. Like you said, it's her body, it's her right to abortion. However if she does decide to keep it for the father's sake, not only do I think that's a bad idea (men have millions of sperm, they could just go and get a different woman pregnant that WANTED the child, or they could adopt a child), but I still think the woman should pay child support.
I think it's a silly idea though because imagine the idea of going through labour and carrying a child for nine months just to give it away? Besides, she might not want it for financial reasons or because she couldn't look after it. But her maternal instincts might go into effect and she might end up keeping it anyhow even if it's going to set back her life by however many years.

Antares

04-13-2008, 05:28 AM

It's not about the mother so much as about the CHILD. Child benefits are to take money away from the man who could be a complete slut that gets women pregnant when they're vulnerable, and then just says he doesn't want the baby and gets away scott free. The mother might not agree with abortion so she'd be stuck with the child and couldn't get any financial support. Even if he's not like that, the purpose is still to take money away from the father and give it to the mother to buy baby food and clothes.
It's the man's choice if he comes to visit the child, it already is. But he should always have to pay child support.

I think it's different with the man wanting a child but the mother not, as the mother is the one that has to carry and give birth to it, and support it for at least eighteen years if the man backs out and she doesn't like the idea of adoption. Like you said, it's her body, it's her right to abortion. However if she does decide to keep it for the father's sake, not only do I think that's a bad idea (men have millions of sperm, they could just go and get a different woman pregnant that WANTED the child, or they could adopt a child), but I still think the woman should pay child support.
I think it's a silly idea though because imagine the idea of going through labour and carrying a child for nine months just to give it away? Besides, she might not want it for financial reasons or because she couldn't look after it. But her maternal instincts might go into effect and she might end up keeping it anyhow even if it's going to set back her life by however many years.

Why is pregnancy viewed as the fault of the male? I'm assuming here, (in most cases), the desire for sex was mutual. So if the woman insists on the child, the man shouldn't have his life ruined or changed for something he did not consent. The child was the result of mutual sex, not the actions of the man. The mother is just as responsible, so what right has she to make the man pay if she insists, selfishly, that she wants the child without considering what the man wants? She should at least consider the father's take on this. If a mother insists on the child and makes the man pay, I'd say she's being horribly irresponsible. And the scenario here is that they're not married. If they are, then I think the man's opinion should be very seriously considered for the sake of equality in the marriage. Don't you think it's unfair that the woman, being the one in power, can single handedly change someone else's (the man) life in which the man has no say? The woman here should be reasonable. It's something they created together, through mutual consent. Woman has the right to carry the child to term, but if she insists on doing so without the man's consent, she bears the burden alone, or as far as the man wants to participate.

As for the second paragraph, I agree it doesn't make sense, but I think that's what should be done, if, hypothetically, the mother really decides to do such an absurd thing. Maybe I should abandon this scenario, because it clearly has no practical value.

I have plenty of sisters so I believe in choice, but I was also hurt by choice. When my soon to be wife informed me 3 months after the fact, that she had aborted our baby, because she didn't want to get married while showing, I was floored. We had talked several times about kids we were financially sound no problems. I wasn't consulted by her at all, I felt betrayed. This felt to selfish, for me it was over no marriage no way. My response may seem petty to some but I felt that at the very least she should have told me about her choice so I could have had a chance to offer alternatives (delay wedding and such) but to not have been consulted at all, to hurtfull by far.

Precisely what I was talking about; men should have a say.

EsoteriEccentri

04-13-2008, 05:37 AM

thod

04-13-2008, 05:41 AM

I can accept that if she doesn't want it then she aborts. If the man doesn't want it then she either aborts or gives up any claim on the father.

The problem is she is making the choices, he is paying the price. It seems unjust to punish someone for a choice made by another. Paying the costs of 2 mortgages is going to be beyond the means of most men. She gets a baby and most of his pay cheque, everything she wants, its a win-win scenario for her. It reduces men to worker ants for womens ambitions to be mothers. Its very common for women to forget to take the pill on purpose in order to get pregnant. She has all the benefits of a second earner, he has all the disadvantages of paying for a family. Should the pain not be split equally. The mother should suffer the costs as the father is. You can bet your life few women would hand over the child to raised by the father while she pays child support. Woman dream of being mothers and look for a sucker to pay for it all.

Once in this position the mans life is ruined. He cant afford another mate and she wont have him as husband.

EsoteriEccentri

04-13-2008, 05:46 AM

Erm. What?
Child Support isn't that much money. If he can't afford it he gets help. And it certainly doesn't cover the cost of the child, nowhere near.
Remember, she might not want the baby due to circumstances but she does because of her beliefs.
He made the choice to have sex. They both have to suffer the consequences. It's not fair to give the mother such a hard choice - do something that she disagrees with and could traumatise her (I know women who'd had to have an abortion for financial reasons and have never gotten over it) or bring a child up in an unsuitable environment.
What sort of choice is that?
Abortion is never easy, but it has to be an option. It doesn't mean that some man who was equally to blame as the mother can just walk out.
Remember, it's about the child not the mother getting money.

thod

04-13-2008, 06:55 AM

Child Support isn't that much money.

Seems to me it would be. To pay the support you could buy a fixed term annuity for 18 years. This means you pay the life company a fixed sum, they guarantee to pay out a fixed sum each year for the life of the annuity. The amount is calculated according to diminishing the capital and expected investment returns. Once the term expires the product is spent and has no value. You would pay them the cash and they would make payments directly to the mother to meet your child support.

I did a quick look at annuity rates, couldn't find a fixed term so did a 57 year old man assumed to die at 75. That pays out 8k a year per 100k invested. So if we wanted an inflation adjusted product, that rises a little each year with inflation, we would need to hand over 100k to ensure the mother gets $100 a week in child support.

I consider 100k a lot of money, in practice child support may be much higher dependent on the fathers income.

TheLastMohican

04-13-2008, 11:43 AM

my real question is this, at what point does a fetus get granted it's human rights, including the right not to be murdered?

At conception. No other time is logical.

The idea that a fetus becomes human at birth is preposterous. Birth is actually relatively minor in terms of development. It is a milestone more for the mother than for the child.

Trimesters do not work, either, lacking a specific event that defines humanity.

Discounting the idea of humanity beginning at conception, I think the most logical argument is that of a certain Princeton professor, who says that children become worthy of human rights when they become self aware, or at around 2 to 3 years of age. According to this idea, there is no problem with slaying toddlers, since they won't know that you are slaying a fellow human. That too is preposterous, but the dividing line is more logical.

To those who think life begins at birth: What developmental event makes the difference?

thod

04-13-2008, 12:22 PM

To those who think life begins at birth: What developmental event makes the difference?

Certainly at the early stages there is no nervous system/brain that could allow the fetus to think or feel pain. The birth event is significant because at that point it becomes an independent organism. Prior to this it is parasitic on the mother. Although a baby is still dependent on the mother she could be substituted with a wet nurse and then other carers.

There are huge problems with regarding conception as becoming human. If we regard a single cell as being human then how are we to regard clones. In these you hollow out an egg and insert a new cell nucleus. This could be a skin cell for example. There is no meeting of egg and sperm yet the cloned cat is still a cat. It clearly is not the capacity of cells to grow and multiply. A cancer cell does that yet will not become human.

Identical twins split after conception and the results are clearly human. If the single cell was a human how can it now be two humans. This clearly matters to those that argue about souls. Which half got the soul.

The question is not easy to answer. Currently abortion time limits are set by looking at the survival rate of a fetus taken out by cs. If it was early for it to have developed lungs, for example, it will not survive.

TheLastMohican

04-13-2008, 01:01 PM

The single cell resulting from the sperm and egg contains all the genetic material of the human.

thod

04-13-2008, 01:06 PM

The single cell resulting from the sperm and egg contains all the genetic material of the human

So does every cell. Apart from a few brain cells you don't have a single cell left from your childhood, its all been replaced.

TheLastMohican

04-13-2008, 01:09 PM

I should elaborate more on that. I was referring to the obvious potential of the cell. it is splitting and forming a human. That impetus is a major step in development, and I think that is logically where it begins.

After that, it is constantly changing, so how do tell when it becomes human?

As to the birth,the baby does not experience any change in mental awareness at birth. The brain continues to develop, but that is not a pivotal moment in the sequence.

thod

04-13-2008, 01:14 PM

Consider To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. for why all cells contain all the info needed.

The development cutoff argument has already been addressed.

TheLastMohican

04-13-2008, 01:17 PM

The development cutoff argument has already been addressed.

Which argument are you referring to?

More Tea

04-13-2008, 02:03 PM

I am pro-choice and childfree... and a woman, notably. Frankly, I find arguments about what stage life begins in to be fantastically irrelevant. As discussed in someone else's earlier post, a fetus is a trespasser. For my purposes, it remains a trespasser, no matter how many qualities of "personhood" you care to romantically assign it. I would not let my body serve as a host to any stranger --or even most acquaintances and friends-- for nine months without some sort of fight, and the same applies to "unborn babies." Pass all the laws you want: I'll still embrace a forced pregnancy with all the fervor of a man facing a forced castration after enjoying a night with his beloved. And my attempts to circumvent the requirements of the law(s) would be no less stunning in their heart-felt vehemence.

On a completely different note...

Notoppings, I feel very bad for what happened to you. In a relationship where you have confided in each other and had --it seemed-- trusted each other enough to commit to spend your lives together, withholding something so fundamental as a pregnancy would be profoundly shocking and betraying. I don't find your response at all petty; indeed, if my husband had kept me in the dark about something so fundamental before our wedding, I am sure I'd have reacted the same.

Antares

04-13-2008, 04:02 PM

The man's life is hardly ruined by a child if he didn't want it. It's not much money per month.
The mother's life would be.
I completely agree with abortion but you can't force the mother to have one by calling her selfish if she doesn't. Some would rather kill themselves, if they view abortion as murder.
I think pregnancy is always regarded as the fault of the female, and I'm just saying that the male should take at least a little responsibility.

I don't think it should be the fault of the female. It was something mutual, and it was no more the fault of the man than the fault of the woman. I'm not forcing the woman to have one; where did you get the gist of that? If she is selfish, then why can't I call her that? It's not much money? That depends. It certainly is an emotional burden too. I don't know about all women, but I, for one, would be a little weary of men who had children, in a romantic relationship (marriage material)

At conception. No other time is logical.

The idea that a fetus becomes human at birth is preposterous. Birth is actually relatively minor in terms of development. It is a milestone more for the mother than for the child.

Trimesters do not work, either, lacking a specific event that defines humanity.

Discounting the idea of humanity beginning at conception, I think the most logical argument is that of a certain Princeton professor, who says that children become worthy of human rights when they become self aware, or at around 2 to 3 years of age. According to this idea, there is no problem with slaying toddlers, since they won't know that you are slaying a fellow human. That too is preposterous, but the dividing line is more logical.

To those who think life begins at birth: What developmental event makes the difference?

I don't deny that life begins at birth; a clump of cells is still life. But it's still a clump of cells no matter what you want to think. It's no different physiologically from the clump of cells anywhere else in your body; except for the 'potential'. It's still an animal cell, with the complete set of human DNA and is dividing. I urge you to see it as it *is*, not as it could be. What define humanity? A stage of development that sets us apart from other animals. Quickening? But animals move too, don't they? Brain activity? The ability to feel pain? The ability to distinguish voices? Whoa- we're getting there.

But what about the mother? Does the fetus have the right to use another's body for survival? Why is the mother forced to house it? Like someone else said, we can always flush it out and see what happens... We don't have to kill it. Are you obliged to save a woman from drowning? No. Are you obliged to donate your kidney to anyone? No. Then why is the woman obliged to let ANYONE use her body? The fetus is a parasite. Nothing more. And the host has the right to drive it out. The mothers who want abortion never permitted the fetus to take her oxygen... or her nutrients. If she wants the parasite gone, she should be able to get an abortion. Can you use another's body without permission? No. Then why can the fetus use the mother's body when she doesn't want it to? Isn't that what would happen if we ban abortion? We're not just talking human rights here, but superhuman rights. Clearly, not even full grown humans can do that.

Jgib5328

04-13-2008, 05:47 PM

My view on abortion is that if it is to prevent the future suffering of a human being than it is fine. If the child will be handicapped either physically or mentally, then abortion would be fine to prevent suffering. If the woman was raped, it would be unfair to allow her to suffer the shame of having to raise a child born in such conditions. I used to be against abortion for people who had the kid out of being irresponsible or just deciding that they don't want the kid and want to get it aborted, I thought this because of a moral stance, we are just allowing people to be more irresponsible. Now I believe that what's the point of forcing the lady to have a kid, when she really doesn't want it? The kid would just grow up unwanted by his parents and could potentially have a bad relationship with his parents, which could lead to all kinds of difficulties. Of course the parents could grow to love the kid or would act like they loved the kid, but how often will that happen?

So basically what I'm saying is that, it shouldn't matter at what stage the fetus is in development, the point of abortion is to prevent suffering or avoid unnecessary burdens to make other people's lives better. I know you could make the argument that it should be up to the person whether they live or die, but in some cases it is better to not live at all. I know that if I were to be severely handicapped in life, I know that I'd rather not be alive at all. I even think that it'd be moral to kill a baby who was severely handicapped even after they were born, living as an invalid is much worse than never living at all. I don't care about women's rights or human rights, I just think it makes sense to allow abortions.

I didn't read any of the five pages of posts, so sorry about that..

ShaiGar

04-13-2008, 06:28 PM

I'm reiterating my statement that Abortion is murder. Just go ahead and do it if you want to do it. The world is overpopulated as it is.

EsoteriEccentri: If 100 dollars was taken from me every week I would soon find myself impoverished and without a job. That money is Transport money so that I can ensure I am at work on time and not fired. A lot of people these days have tight budgets, and most of these women just want to take take take take take.

Antares: Excellent arguments, and on behalf of all rational people I applaud you. That's been my stance forever. Men should not have to pay child support as the result of a one night fling if they wore a condom, or were told that the girl was on contraceptives. Well... perhaps a gentleman would offer to pay for the abortion.

To recap. It's a human life that is being ended. So are the millions who die in Africa each day. So what?

TheLastMohican

04-13-2008, 06:38 PM

I'm reiterating my statement that Abortion is murder. Just go ahead and do it if you want to do it. The world is overpopulated as it is.

My arguments will be making the point that abortion is murder. Those who believe that murder is acceptable are not in my realm of concern.

So if it doesn't make a difference to you whether it is murder, please say so initially.

ShaiGar

04-13-2008, 06:51 PM

People ought to recognise things for what they really are. Knowingly ending a life for whatever reason is murder. Premeditated Murder if they weigh the options as in a case like this. So is euthanasia, death penalty, triage, et cetera. There are a lot of socially acceptable reasons for ending life. If you take things as they are and not as they might be*; then at this stage in development it is easy enough to flush out of the body.

Anyway I did say so initially. Whether I am in your realm of concern, is of no concern to me.

*You wouldn't kill Hitler as a teenager would you? Woah, good argument. That baby you're aborting could grow up to be another Hitler, or Antichrist if you believe that way.

TheLastMohican

04-13-2008, 06:58 PM

*You wouldn't kill Hitler as a teenager would you? Woah, good argument. That baby you're aborting could grow up to be another Hitler, or Antichrist if you believe that way.

Abortion cannot be compared to this. There was only one Hitler, out of billions of children. You can't tell who will be another like him.

However, armed with the 20/20 hindsight, it is a good question. I might try to reason with him first. If he began his success as before, though, I would kill him, knowing what he had in mind.

Jgib5328

04-13-2008, 07:16 PM

Abortion cannot be compared to this. There was only one Hitler, out of billions of children. You can't tell who will be another like him.

However, armed with the 20/20 hindsight, it is a good question. I might try to reason with him first. If he began his success as before, though, I would kill him, knowing what he had in mind.

It's always better to exterminate a potential threat, than let them live. If you knew what Hitler was capable of, it'd just be better to kill him, it's just one life versus millions.

I guess you can consider all abortion murder, but if you do, then you shouldn't consider all murder bad.

TheLastMohican

04-13-2008, 07:23 PM

Antares, some brief thoughts:

I do see the clump of cells as it is. But I do not see any clear difference between that clump of cells and you. They contain the same kind of genetic material, and both are building themselves, with systems in place. You are just a bigger clump. If you bring up your self-awareness, then you run into the ambiguity of that. Are you sure you have sufficient mental ability to be up to a certain standard? If I am more intelligent than you are, should I be allowed to kill you without qualms, since you are "undeveloped?"

I would argue that, when following standard evolutionary theory, there is no real problem with me killing those I deem lesser mortals. After all, who says you have a right to live? You only think you do because you are human, and you think that others of your species should not kill you.

This is easily answered if you are a theist, but since you are not, I will leave that aspect out of the explanation.

For the terms of the abortion argument, I am speaking of the role of government, not morality. I do not think I can convince you of a moral concept that you do not already have. But government regulation of abortion is what makes it wrong in these secular terms.

I will use the US government as my basis, since it is the purest kind. The government is created by the people, of the people, and for the people. The purpose of the government, seeing that it is of and for humans, is to protect those humans. At its basic level it is not for the protection of other species. It assumes that its own species is superior, and worthy of this protection. It could be considered a kind of fraternity club in the biosphere.

The question is here is what qualifies one for this club, and its benefits. Do you follow me?

I will continue if we are on the same page.

TheLastMohican added to this post, 4 minutes and 14 seconds later...

It's always better to exterminate a potential threat, than let them live. If you knew what Hitler was capable of, it'd just be better to kill him, it's just one life versus millions.

I guess you can consider all abortion murder, but if you do, then you shouldn't consider all murder bad.

I think it would be unfair to kill Hitler that early, since he still would be impressionable, and devoid of his evil views. His agendas were not set until much later, and you ought to give him a chance to listen to you first.

Furthermore, despite his destiny, I would be uncertain of my place to meddle with such affairs. It might be that killing Hitler would result in even more deaths.

I do not consider all murder bad when using ShaiGar's definition. I think many assassinations are just and obligatory. I would not hesitate to murder Osama Bin Laden, for example.

Jgib5328

04-13-2008, 07:29 PM

TheLastMohican added to this post, 4 minutes and 14 seconds later...

I think it would be unfair to kill Hitler that early, since he still would be impressionable, and devoid of his evil views. His agendas were not set until much later, and you ought to give him a chance to listen to you first.

Furthermore, despite his destiny, I would be uncertain of my place to meddle with such affairs. It might be that killing Hitler would result in even more deaths.

I do not consider all murder bad when using ShaiGar's definition. I think many assassinations are just and obligatory. I would not hesitate to murder Osama Bin Laden, for example.

Why give him a chance to live? Just kill him and take away all of the risk. Think of it in expected value, there is a high probability that he does serious damage, so taking out Hitler early would do the world good, plus it is one life, it isn't significant compared to 6 million jews and all of the people's lives who were lost during the actual battle.

TheLastMohican

04-13-2008, 07:35 PM

Why give him a chance to live? Just kill him and take away all of the risk. Think of it in expected value, there is a high probability that he does serious damage, so taking out Hitler early would do the world good, plus it is one life, it isn't significant compared to 6 million jews and all of the people's lives who were lost during the actual battle.

The vital question is what bad things might have happened without WWII. Think about how much the war changed the world. Do you really want to mess around with that? You might do great harm when you think you are doing good.

As for Hitler, I would at least wait until he had formed opinions. I could always kill him later in his life.

PRBori

04-13-2008, 07:43 PM

Jgib5328

04-13-2008, 07:44 PM

The vital question is what bad things might have happened without WWII. Think about how much the war changed the world. Do you really want to mess around with that? You might do great harm when you think you are doing good.

As for Hitler, I would at least wait until he had formed opinions. I could always kill him later in his life.

Well yeah if WWII never happened, the US probably wouldn't of had that economic boom in the 1950s and probably wouldn't be a global power to the same degree as they are today.

TheLastMohican

04-13-2008, 07:50 PM

PRBori, how do you make sense of your views? What is different between day 89 and day 91?

PRBori

04-13-2008, 07:56 PM

PRBori, how do you make sense of your views? What is different between day 89 and day 91?

It all has to do with Prenatal Development and is not necessarily by days but weeks. 3m = 12 wks. So to me the earliest the better, prefer before entering week 9, so it was my mistake, I should have said 60 days instead of 90.

The Fetus

At this point the embryo is developed enough to call a fetus. All organs and structures found in a full-term newborn are present.

Weeks 9 to 12 -- 3 inches, 1 ounce: The head comprises nearly half of the fetus’ size and the face is well formed. The eyelids close now and will not reopen until about the 28th week. The tooth buds for the baby teeth appear. The genitalia are now clearly male or female.

You can find additional information here:

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

TheLastMohican

04-13-2008, 07:57 PM

Do you consider the fetus unhuman at day 89, making its killing acceptable?

Jgib5328

04-13-2008, 08:00 PM

Abortion is unaceptable; however, I can symphatized with women who were rape, are in a abusive relationship, or otherwise encounter some sort of hardship on their life for which having a child will impact them emotially, mentally, or even financially.

However, to me abortion after the first 90 days is a crime. If a women is to consider abortion, it should be performed as soon as she finds out she's pregnant. After 90 days the fetus has formed and I personally consider it a full human being.

Nevertheless, I'm not 100% for it, but I'm not against it if there are specific reasons. However, a women who is premiscous and just have abortions for the hell of it, then I'm sorry, but that women is a killer whether it is at the first trimester or not. There have to be very stringent reasons for a women to make such a decision.

After all, having children is a real blessing from God. There are many women who cannot bear children at all or that have to spend thousands of dollars in vitro to get a child. Being grateful and understanding is important.

Unless the women is naive, she should know that if she has un-protected sex chances of getting pregnant is high. In addition, women who have already given birth tend to be more susceptible and can easily get pregnant immediately, even 4 months after having a child. All in all women need to think about the consequences and take the appropriate measures if they do not want to become pregnant in order to avoid abortion.

Not only are abortions expensive, they do have major health complications and could shatter the dreams of eventually having a child later on in life.

What's the point of having a baby if it's just going to bring displeasure? What if some poor irresponsible woman had unprotected sex, not intending on getting pregnant, gets pregnant. Why should she have that baby? So she can't afford to take care of it? Or so she can be unhappy for the rest of her life because she had a kid that she didn't want? I don't see a point, fetuses are so insignificant, it's not like it'll know that it's dying, it's not like us, it doesn't have a consciousness, it is still incredibly primitive. Just kill the thing I say.

Also, what if the fetus will be severely handicapped? Why let it live? It'll live a miserable life and will just be a huge burden on it's family, it should be put out of it's misery as soon as possible.

PRBori

04-13-2008, 08:03 PM

Do you consider the fetus unhuman at day 89, making its killing acceptable?

Killing a human is never acceptable; however, if there is very specific reasons, then I would say that an abortion before 60 days is preferred.

PRBori added to this post, 2 minutes and 27 seconds later...

Do you consider the fetus unhuman at day 89, making its killing acceptable?

What's the point of having a baby if it's just going to bring displeasure? What if some poor irresponsible woman had unprotected sex, not intending on getting pregnant, gets pregnant. Why should she have that baby? So she can't afford to take care of it? Or so she can be unhappy for the rest of her life because she had a kid that she didn't want? I don't see a point, fetuses are so insignificant, it's not like it'll know that it's dying, it's not like us, it doesn't have a consciousness, it is still incredibly primitive. Just kill the thing I say.

Also, what if the fetus will be severely handicapped? Why let it live? It'll live a miserable life and will just be a huge burden on it's family, it should be put out of it's misery as soon as possible.

I did mention that there are certain criteria for which I have no objection to a women having an abortion. It is afterall a personal choice. If there is emotional, mental, or financial hardships I can understand. If the fetus has issues, I can also understand.

I've never said I'm against it, I only said that there has to be a very specific reason for such and that for women who are promiscuos and tend to abort for the hell of it is unaceptable.

TheLastMohican

04-13-2008, 08:05 PM

Killing a human is never acceptable; however, if there is very specific reasons, then I would say that an abortion before 60 days is preferred.

Then you are saying that the fetus is not human at some point in those first 60 days.

Jgib5328

04-13-2008, 08:06 PM

Killing a human is never acceptable; however, if there is very specific reasons, then I would say that an abortion before 60 days is preferred.

PRBori added to this post, 2 minutes and 27 seconds later...

I did mention that there are certain criteria for which I have no objection to a women having an abortion. It is afterall a personal choice. If there is emotional, mental, or financial hardships I can understand. If the fetus has issues, I can also understand.

I've never said I'm against it, I only said that there has to be a very specific reason for such and that for women who are promiscuos and tend to abort for the hell of it is unaceptable.

Should a woman who is trashy enough to have too much unprotected sex and just go on and get abortions really a suitable mother? That's another one of my arguments, a woman like that probably wouldn't be a good mother.

ShaiGar

04-13-2008, 08:09 PM

Well yeah if WWII never happened, the US probably wouldn't of had that economic boom in the 1950s and probably wouldn't be a global power to the same degree as they are today.

Not to mention Germany's economic slump that the nationalist socialist party helped drag them out of. Economically war is good to drag you out of a recession. Especially if you're declaring war on your debtors.

PRBori

04-13-2008, 08:16 PM

Then you are saying that the fetus is not human at some point in those first 60 days.

NO. I'm merely saying that it is prefer to have an abortion before the 60 day period. The process of a human being developed begins when a zygote forms, but it is not until the 9th week that it has all the human organs.

You must understand that I'm not trying to agree with the behavior, but I'm also not condeming the behavior for specific reasons. For example, if a women became pregnant due to rape, it is rare that she will be able to handle having a child for it will continously remind her of the event and instead of loving the child she will harm it. In this situation, I would recommend that she have an abortion becuase the emotional state left behind by the rape will interfere on how she feels towards that child if born.

Again, it has to do with the situation in which that women finds herself and the understanding that she will do her best to not do it again. However, for women who seem to abort for the hell of it one time after another, then I do have an issue because it is now like a game and they are killing a child for the hell of it.

Does that clarify my point?

PRBori added to this post, 2 minutes and 49 seconds later...

Should a woman who is trashy enough to have too much unprotected sex and just go on and get abortions really a suitable mother? That's another one of my arguments, a woman like that probably wouldn't be a good mother.

I understand that such a women will not be a good mother, but there are options that she can take in order to avoid getting pregnant. If she spend $500 dollars for a 10 year birth control, that will mitigate the issue and save her money. An abortion can cost up to $500 and have a greater health impact. For such women, I consider them killers because they know what to do but avoid it.

Jgib5328

04-13-2008, 08:19 PM

I understand that such a women will not be a good mother, but there are options that she can take in order to avoid getting pregnant. If she spend $500 dollars for a 10 year birth control, that will mitigate the issue and save her money. An abortion can cost up to $500 and have a greater health impact. For such women, I consider them killers because they know what to do but avoid it.

The fact is though, that these women don't have the common sense to consider these things and are just irresponsible women that aren't willing to change, therefore making them poor candidates for mothers.

TheLastMohican

04-13-2008, 08:21 PM

NO. I'm merely saying that it is prefer to have an abortion before the 60 day period. The process of a human being developed begins when a zygote forms, but it is not until the 9th week that it has all the human organs...

Does that clarify my point?

It is somewhat clarified. But I don't understand why you would recommend something that you consider "never acceptable."

PRBori

04-13-2008, 08:22 PM

The fact is though, that these women don't have the common sense to consider these things and are just irresponsible women that aren't willing to change, therefore making them poor candidates for mothers.

Which is why I consider them KILLERS... sorry but I don't agree with the above reasons to terminate a human being, specially if it is a repetitive act. In other words, they are free to do as they will with their bodies and have abortions but my view of them is trashy...

futureperfect5

04-13-2008, 08:24 PM

PRBori

04-13-2008, 08:30 PM

It is somewhat clarified. But I don't understand why you would recommend something that you consider "never acceptable."

I think it is hard for men to truly understand what a women goes thru when pregnant, nevertheless the impact that such can have in her whether it is emotional, mentally, or financially. I will say that many sane women consider all the options and whether or not they can offer the child a good life.

It's kind of hard to understand but we want to avoid what has happen to many times already. Women having children and killing them either after they were born or when they are a little older. If you look at the news there have being many cases in which the mothers have killed their own children. As a mother myself I cannot see myself doing so but can understand how stressful it is to be a mother.

Although I'm not a fan of abortion, I do understand women who are sane and know why such has to happen. However, I would also expect them to avoid the mistake and take responsability so that it never has to happen again.

In my mind is NEVER ACCEPTABLE, but logically I have to view it in every other angle before saying NO, they can't do it. After all it is a personal matter and only that women who's going thru the changes knows what's best for both of them.

PRBori added to this post, 1 minutes and 26 seconds later...

Despite of distinguishing intj "traits" the thinking in this post is all too conventional.
Would it be for others to decide such a thing for another?
That is the only question here ...
I cannot, nor would ever take on that decision for anyone else.

I don't feel I'm deciding for anyone, I'm merely describing my views. All in all each women is free to do as they please with their bodies, but I do however have a specific views on who, and why such was performed.

Jgib5328

04-13-2008, 08:32 PM

Despite of distinguishing intj "traits" the thinking in this post is all too conventional.
Would it be for others to decide such a thing for another?
That is the only question here ...
I cannot, nor would ever take on that decision for anyone else.

A fetus isn't an 'anyone' a fetus is a thing, it isn't a human being. Only adults or people who are mature enough should be able to make all of their important decisions. Would you allow a four year old to make all of his or her decisions? The decisions a person is allowed to make should grow with their age. A 12 year old has more capability to make decisions than a 4 year old, thus it makes sense for them to make more decisions, but it doesn't make sent for them to make as many decisions as a 30 year old. By this logic, a fetus should have no capabilities to make a decision, thus the parent should make every decision for it. If the fetus would be severely retarded, the parent would be doing the fetus good if it put it out of its misery.

TheLastMohican

04-13-2008, 08:36 PM

In my mind is NEVER ACCEPTABLE, but logically I have to view it in every other angle before saying NO, they can't do it. After all it is a personal matter and only that women who's going thru the changes knows what's best for both of them.

This seems self-contradictory. If you say it is never acceptable, then why would you review the angle for a specific case? At the outset you supposedly already know it is "unacceptable."

TheLastMohican added to this post, 2 minutes and 16 seconds later...

A fetus isn't an 'anyone' a fetus is a thing, it isn't a human being.

At what point can the fetus be considered human?

If the fetus would be severely retarded, the parent would be doing the fetus good if it put it out of its misery.

You presume that the retarded child is in "misery." What gives you that idea? The retarded child does not know he is retarded.

Jgib5328

04-13-2008, 08:42 PM

At what point can the fetus be considered human?

You presume that the retarded child is in "misery." What gives you that idea? The retarded child does not know he is retarded.

That's a subjective question, I'll make my answer simple, I consider it human when it is born. I don't care about scientific definitions, this is still just a subjective topic, so that's my subjective answer.

Well I guess you could make that argument. If someone is severely physically handicapped or deformed, then they will most likely be in constant misery. I just think there is no point for a retarded person to be born. I know people have good experiences with them, but I don't think it makes much sense to me, just my opinion though.

PRBori

04-13-2008, 08:42 PM

This seems self-contradictory. If you say it is never acceptable, then why would you review the angle for a specific case? At the outset you supposedly already know it is "unacceptable."

Simply because each women's perspective and situation is unique. Within my moral values is unaceptable; however, If I had experience a situation that would impact me emotionally, mentally, or financially and not allow me to provide the child a good life, then I would have to reconsider my options.

If I was rape tomorrow and got pregnant I would most likely not want anything with that child because it would remind me of the rape. Not only that, but I would probably not treat the child as I would one that came from a loving relationship. It may seem contradictory in a way, but My Moral Views and what I consider My Logical Views do differ. Deep inside I will do everything in my power to avoid it... but in reality, if it did happen, I will certainly consider what's best for both of us.

TheLastMohican

04-13-2008, 08:50 PM

That's a subjective question, I'll make my answer simple, I consider it human when it is born. I don't care about scientific definitions, this is still just a subjective topic, so that's my subjective answer.

Fair enough. My subjective definition is conception, based on no other logical recourse. I think every definition has its problems, but conception is the least problematic.

Well I guess you could make that argument. If someone is severely physically handicapped or deformed, then they will most likely be in constant misery. I just think there is no point for a retarded person to be born. I know people have good experiences with them, but I don't think it makes much sense to me, just my opinion though.

What would you consider retarded?

Presumably the reason you should not kill a person is because you are robbing him of his chance to enjoy life. Retarded people often enjoy life far more than normal people. Therefore, when you say there is no point for the retarded person to be born, it calls into question whether is any point for you to be born. Intelligence is subjective, and relative to others, with no single standard that determines worthiness.

TheLastMohican added to this post, 1 minutes and 22 seconds later...

Simply because each women's perspective and situation is unique. Within my moral values is unaceptable; however, If I had experience a situation that would impact me emotionally, mentally, or financially and not allow me to provide the child a good life, then I would have to reconsider my options.

If I was rape tomorrow and got pregnant I would most likely not want anything with that child because it would remind me of the rape. Not only that, but I would probably not treat the child as I would one that came from a loving relationship. It may seem contradictory in a way, but My Moral Views and what I consider My Logical Views do differ. Deep inside I will do everything in my power to avoid it... but in reality, if it did happen, I will certainly consider what's best for both of us.

Understood. I had not thought of your logical views and moral views differing.

Antares

04-14-2008, 01:32 AM

TLM: Why you decided to make me an example, I will never know, but of course, I agree that we're all giant lumps of cells. But we're not allowed to kill giant lumps of cells, for the same reason we're not allowed to start a violent riot; it threatens the society. Don't argue as if I made the laws; I didn't. I'm just saying it's ok to destroy lumps of cells, since we obviously have no trouble pulling out a bunch of hair and not feel guilty about the poor hair follicles, which obviously have the same amount of cells as an embryo at a given stage. Does abortion create social unrest? Not unless somebody decides to take it to the extremes, and that's not directly caused by abortion. I think we all heard of pro-life zealots murdering clinic operators.

I would argue that, when following standard evolutionary theory, there is no real problem with me killing those I deem lesser mortals. After all, who says you have a right to live? You only think you do because you are human, and you think that others of your species should not kill you.

It's not the lesser mortals that are in question. It's the bias towards the mother. It's for the mother to decide whether she can allow a virtual parasite to inhabit her body and raise the probability of death by 13 times than if she got an abortion (I got it from Opposite Viewpoints; the book).

To complicate it even further, we need to realize that physical dependence also means a physical threat to the life of the mother. The World Health Organization reports that nearly 670,000 women die from pregnancy-related complications each year (this number does not include abortions). Thats 1,800 women per day. We also read that in developed countries, such as United States and Canada, a woman is 13 times more likely to die bringing a pregnancy to term than by having an abortion.

And by this point, I would suggest that we put our religious affiliations behind us and not use any deity as an argument; because some of us are clearly not religious.

Is it a human? Yes. A descendant of the species homo sapien. Is it a person?

An individual or existing as an indivisible whole; existing as a distinct entity.

A fetus is clearly not a distinct entity, nor an independent individual.

It is somewhat clarified. But I don't understand why you would recommend something that you consider "never acceptable."

I think she meant that she doesn't find it acceptable, but considering the 'big picture', what she finds unacceptable is insignificant next to it. That's now I interpreted it. It's like a student saying this: "Cheating, I find it unacceptable, but if I don't cheat tomorrow I'll fail the exam, and thus the entire year. Considering what's at stake, I'll cheat." Don't take offense in this example; the only one I can come up with.

thod

04-14-2008, 05:29 AM

My arguments will be making the point that abortion is murder. Those who believe that murder is acceptable are not in my realm of concern.

Murder is premeditated, unlawful, killing. A killing is lawful when you are acting to preserve yourself, or another, or property from unwanted harm. This is often called self defense, it is your argument when you shoot the crazed knife man.

That the embryo is harmful to the woman, even to the point of death, cannot be disputed. Thus abortion cannot be considered murder but an act of self defense.

The question of humanity does not arise. I reminded of movie vampires wishing to suck you blood in order to feed and survive. The embryo does the same. The point being that you are justified in defending yourself from their attacks regardless of their needs. The rabbit may run from the starving fox, even if it needs to eat rabbit meat.

ShaiGar

04-14-2008, 06:13 AM

Murder is premeditated, unlawful, killing. A killing is lawful when you are acting to preserve yourself, or another, or property from unwanted harm.
Only the legal definition of murder.

Not the true definition of murder.

Kotetsu

04-14-2008, 06:24 AM

Murder is premeditated, unlawful, killing. A killing is lawful when you are acting to preserve yourself, or another, or property from unwanted harm.

I can see it now: a ten year old murders his classmate because he/she was going to break his pencil then gets off because of the emboldened clause.

[I'm not making a point through that analogy]

thod

04-14-2008, 06:51 AM

Yea US laws are very much property based. In the UK you wouldn't be able to use defense of property for self defense. The crown prosecution service offers the following:

Self defence (Archbold 19-41)
Self defence is as much a defence to murder and manslaughter as to any other offence. As with all cases of offences against the person, when considering the sufficiency of evidence under the Code, if it is plain that such a defence is likely to succeed it would not be right to commence proceedings.

If there is evidence to support self-defence, the burden falls on the prosecution to rebut it beyond reasonable doubt, i.e. to prove that the accused was not acting in self defence.

This is a two-stage test, the first part is subjective: from the accused's perspective and the second is objective: the "reasonable man" test.
Stage 1: Did the accused genuinely believe that force was necessary to protect himself or another?
Stage 2: If the defendant genuinely held that belief, even if it was irrational, then was the degree of force used reasonable to meet the threat as he perceived it to be?

In self-defence cases, the jury must be directed to the question of whether a defendant's response was commensurate with the degree of risk he or she believed to be created by the threatened assault: Beckford v R (1987) 3 All ER 425.

When considering the reasonableness of the force used in self defence, a person cannot weigh to a nicety the exact measure of his defensive action (see Palmer v R (1971) 55 Cr App R 223). He does not have to retreat as far as he can and does not have to wait until he is struck, retreat is merely a factor to take into account in deciding if D is the aggressor or not – R v Bird (Debbie) (1985) 2 All ER 813.

Which is quite interesting. It would suggest a nut that genuinely believed you were a vampire would be able to plead self defense for pushing a stake through your heart because you were about to bite him. Of course he would be sent to a secure mental hospital, but not prison.

TheLastMohican

04-14-2008, 07:22 AM

TLM: Why you decided to make me an example, I will never know, but of course, I agree that we're all giant lumps of cells.

Simple; I am trying to reason with you, so I need a basic agreement. I assume you agree that you have a right not to be killed. If I used someone else, you might call into question the qualities of that person, like Jgib does, and that would only result in confusion.

But we're not allowed to kill giant lumps of cells, for the same reason we're not allowed to start a violent riot; it threatens the society.

Hopefully you are not implying that the right to live depends on size.

Don't argue as if I made the laws; I didn't.

It has nothing to do with you making the laws. I speak of the role of government, and I am using the US government as a basic model, since it is the best form for basic human rights. Like I said, the government is like a fraternity which protects its own species. It is designed for the overall good of mankind, and therefore it provides its members the right to live.

I'm just saying it's ok to destroy lumps of cells, since we obviously have no trouble pulling out a bunch of hair and not feel guilty about the poor hair follicles, which obviously have the same amount of cells as an embryo at a given stage.

The cells in hair are dead, and are only tissue. The cells in an embryo make up a separate organism, which should be distinguished from the tissue of which it is made.

Does abortion create social unrest?

I argue that it does. Many people are just as bothered by abortions as by murders of adults. The fact that fetuses cannot speak should not render them insignificant.

It's not the lesser mortals that are in question. It's the bias towards the mother. It's for the mother to decide whether she can allow a virtual parasite to inhabit her body and raise the probability of death by 13 times than if she got an abortion (I got it from Opposite Viewpoints; the book).

Does it make sense that the fetus is considered human if the mother wants it, and unhuman if the mother does not? (Let me know if you are not familiar with this doctrine; It might be more common in the US.)

And by this point, I would suggest that we put our religious affiliations behind us and not use any deity as an argument; because some of us are clearly not religious.

I thought I already said this in my first response.

Is it a human? Yes. A descendant of the species homo sapien. Is it a person?

Yes, I think it is a person. What is your definition of a "person?"

A fetus is clearly not a distinct entity, nor an independent individual.

A fetus is clearly a distinct entity, since it has a unique genetic identity, and it is an organism separate from the mother. It is not an independent individual in that it depends on the mother. But in that case, when do you think an individual becomes "independent?"

I think she meant that she doesn't find it acceptable, but considering the 'big picture', what she finds unacceptable is insignificant next to it. That's now I interpreted it. It's like a student saying this: "Cheating, I find it unacceptable, but if I don't cheat tomorrow I'll fail the exam, and thus the entire year. Considering what's at stake, I'll cheat." Don't take offense in this example; the only one I can come up with.

I do not agree with that reasoning, but I understand it.

Antares

04-14-2008, 07:38 AM

Hopefully you are not implying that the right to live depends on size.

I wasn't; but I was implying that murder would create problems in the society, so us fully developed humans, AKA giant clumps of cells, are protected by social contract not to be murdered.

It has nothing to do with you making the laws. I speak of the role of government, and I am using the US government as a basic model, since it is the best form for basic human rights. Like I said, the government is like a fraternity which protects its own species. It is designed for the overall good of mankind, and therefore it provides its members the right to live.

Assuming the said members do not use another's body for survival.

The cells in hair are dead, and are only tissue. The cells in an embryo make up a separate organism, which should be distinguished from the tissue of which it is made.

I was talking about the root of the hair. But no matter. The separate organism still hasn't earned the right to enjoy another's body without the latter's consent, and if the latter does not wish to grant it, then rightfully the former should be driven away.

Does it make sense that the fetus is considered human if the mother wants it, and unhuman if the mother does not? (Let me know if you are not familiar with this doctrine; It might be more common in the US.)

No it doesn't. And I never said that.

I thought I already said this in my first response.

Then I would like to thank you. I wasn't addressing you, but perhaps I should be more specific from now on.

yes, I think it is a person. What is your definition of a "person?"

A separate entity; that means separate from another individual and not physically dependent (need to be with another individual 24/7 to survive). Yes, I'm implying after birth. I'm using the book's definition, so I don't know if that will be true.

A fetus is clearly a distinct entity, since it has a unique genetic identity, and it is an organism separate from the mother. It is not an independent individual in that it depends on the mother. But in that case, when do you think an individual becomes "independent?"

When it's physically independent.

I argue that it does. Many people are just as bothered by abortions as by murders of adults. The fact that fetuses cannot speak should not render them insignificant.

That's an emotional response then. If you take two embryos of a human and a rabbit, they look virtually the same at one stage of development (I saw this in my biology textbook. We *won't* be able to tell them apart in normal circumstances (unless you're a professional), but yet we generate more sympathy for one because the adenine, guanine, cytosine and thymine in the cellular nucleus has a different make up. Objectively, the human embryo is *not* superior, nor is it that different. It baffles me why people can't detach themselves and see the world like a camera would; no feelings, no judgments; just information.

TheLastMohican

04-14-2008, 08:13 AM

I wasn't; but I was implying that murder would create problems in the society, so us fully developed humans, AKA giant clumps of cells, are protected by social contract not to be murdered.

Why do you think abortion creates no problems in society?

I was talking about the root of the hair. But no matter. The separate organism still hasn't earned the right to enjoy another's body without the latter's consent, and if the latter does not wish to grant it, then rightfully the former should be driven away.

Is it possible to "earn" this right?
The fetus had no say in the matter. It was conceived by two persons, and in almost all cases, this occurred due to a willful action by the mother. If error was made, it was not by the fetus.

Unwanted pregnancies are bad situations. But I think your method of doling out the punishment is unfair to the one party who was not given a choice.

No it doesn't. And I never said that.

I didn't say you did. That is the current stance of US law. Much of my argument is for the illegality of abortion, but since you are Chinese, perhaps I should leave that part alone and only focus on the morality. However, since I am trying to avoid the religious aspect, the morality is difficult to define. So what exactly are we arguing towards here?

A separate entity; that means separate from another individual and not physically dependent (need to be with another individual 24/7 to survive). Yes, I'm implying after birth. I'm using the book's definition, so I don't know if that will be true.

I thought that a "separate entity" would be just that, an individual.
On broader terms though, it could be argued that no humans are separate entities, if we use your book definition. (This is not limiting the "helpers" to humans.) Humans could be considered parasites on the earth, living off of their fellow organisms. Without these other organisms, humans would rapidly die. Why should the rest of the biosphere tolerate us?

I know that is very strange to say, but I am countering what I consider equally strange ideas. If a right to live depends upon whether one is a "separate entity," then at what point is it earned? Most five-year-olds, while capable of feeding themselves, would not last long at all without other humans. Even most teenagers are hopeless. They can be considered parasites just the same.

That's an emotional response then. If you take two embryos of a human and a rabbit, they look virtually the same at one stage of development (I saw this in my biology textbook. We *won't* be able to tell them apart in normal circumstances (unless you're a professional), but yet we generate more sympathy for one because the adenine, guanine, cytosine and thymine in the cellular nucleus has a different make up. Objectively, the human embryo is *not* superior, nor is it that different. It baffles me why people can't detach themselves and see the world like a camera would; no feelings, no judgments; just information.

Not so. It might be emotional for some, but for me it is based on the logic of the definitions. The fact that at extremely early stages the embryos look the same does not mean that they are the same. Do you believe that a grown human has more rights than a grown rabbit? If so, why would you think that a young human should be considered no better than a young rabbit?

You speak of objectivity, but that is irrelevant here. The whole idea of human rights enforced by the government is subjective. It is based on humans placing a high value on their own species.

When considering this problem, I realized that my views remain grounded in my belief in God. Human life is to be protected because humans have souls, and God dictates thus. Therefore I am reaching outside my basic views to reach the same conclusion through secular logic. However, the only basis of this secular logic is the fundamental acceptance that for governmental purposes, humans consider themselves superior to other species. If that is not a given, then I think there is no way to logically criminalize murder, and then this whole argument is moot.

thod

04-14-2008, 08:14 AM

I argue that it does. Many people are just as bothered by abortions as by murders of adults. The fact that fetuses cannot speak should not render them insignificant.

Abortion is accepted elsewhere in the world and is seen no differently to having an ingrowing toenail removed. Its a strictly American movement. Only the US produces these types of religious groups.

TheLastMohican

04-14-2008, 08:17 AM

Abortion is accepted elsewhere in the world and is seen no differently to having an ingrowing toenail removed. Its a strictly American movement. Only the US produces these types of religious groups.

I think that the legal stance on abortion does not need to be solely religious. I see it as an issue of government protection. If it was only a religious matter, then I probably would not seek government intervention, since the role of government is the protection of society.

thod

04-14-2008, 08:27 AM

I too see it as an issue of government protection.

You have no rights to suck the blood from a woman. Yet you are arguing that this human, the embryo has that right. If your need something from her body to ensure you own survival, such as a kidney, you have no rights to take it. Yet you argue that this other human does.

This seems to break the principle that all men are equal under the law.

The government is allowing the woman to protect herself from the unwanted aggression of the blood sucker.

We can ignore consensus and concentrate on rape cases where the woman gave no consent. One thing that is consistant is you ignoring of the rights of the woman.

TheLastMohican

04-14-2008, 08:32 AM

I too see it as an issue of government protection.

You have no rights to suck the blood from a woman. Yet you are arguing that this human, the embryo has that right. If your need something from her body to ensure you own survival, such as a kidney, you have no rights to take it. Yet you argue that this other human does.

In that case, I think there is no way for me to convince you otherwise.

I think that the fetus' right to live outweighs the woman's "right" not to be fed off of. (By the way, the blood supplies are kept separate.) I argue that this human should be allowed to grow until birth, because he is incapable of doing anything else, and was created without his consent. Is it fair to kill him for something he has no control over?

thod

04-14-2008, 08:41 AM

Is it fair to kill him for something he has no control over?

Yes. The movie vampire wasnt made into a vampire by consent. He has no control over his need to drink blood to survive either. The victim has a perfect right to defend their neck even if this leads to a hungry vampire.

While my mother was pregnant I sucked all the calcium from her and her teeth fell out. Women still die in childbirth. The woman has every right to prevent such injury even if it means killing another. She would be allowed to use force to prevent such injury from an adult.

Antares

04-14-2008, 09:35 AM

Why do you think abortion creates no problems in society?

Because I haven't seen any studies that does not involve emotional responses that are problematic for the society.

Is it possible to "earn" this right?
The fetus had no say in the matter. It was conceived by two persons, and in almost all cases, this occurred due to a willful action by the mother. If error was made, it was not by the fetus.

Unwanted pregnancies are bad situations. But I think your method of doling out the punishment is unfair to the one party who was not given a choice.

What about a microbe living in the water? It was drunk by a man; self-induced risk of disease, sure. And the man should have at least a little idea that he's putting himself at risk. Now, we should just let the poor microbe live, because clearly he wasn't there by his doing. He could have lived happily in the water! But the human drank him in and now he has to be killed.

I thought that a "separate entity" would be just that, an individual.
On broader terms though, it could be argued that no humans are separate entities, if we use your book definition. (This is not limiting the "helpers" to humans.) Humans could be considered parasites on the earth, living off of their fellow organisms. Without these other organisms, humans would rapidly die. Why should the rest of the biosphere tolerate us?

I know that is very strange to say, but I am countering what I consider equally strange ideas. If a right to live depends upon whether one is a "separate entity," then at what point is it earned? Most five-year-olds, while capable of feeding themselves, would not last long at all without other humans. Even most teenagers are hopeless. They can be considered parasites just the same.

I was referring to physical dependence, not social. Not saying the biosphere *should* tolerate us. It's not alive as a whole and it's got no choice. How is that an argument? But a woman has a choice and she's alive.

Is it possible to "earn" this right?
The fetus had no say in the matter. It was conceived by two persons, and in almost all cases, this occurred due to a willful action by the mother. If error was made, it was not by the fetus.

Unwanted pregnancies are bad situations. But I think your method of doling out the punishment is unfair to the one party who was not given a choice.

As long as the women have rights no, it's not possible. The woman is not morally obliged to do anything for the fetus until it is born; if you think you're responsible enough to give birth to it, you have a duty over it. If you don't think you have it, then it should have been aborted instead of being brought into the world to be neglected. And again, it's physical dependence.

Not so. It might be emotional for some, but for me it is based on the logic of the definitions. The fact that at extremely early stages the embryos look the same does not mean that they are the same. Do you believe that a grown human has more rights than a grown rabbit? If so, why would you think that a young human should be considered no better than a young rabbit?

You speak of objectivity, but that is irrelevant here. The whole idea of human rights enforced by the government is subjective. It is based on humans placing a high value on their own species.

When considering this problem, I realized that my views remain grounded in my belief in God. Human life is to be protected because humans have souls, and God dictates thus. Therefore I am reaching outside my basic views to reach the same conclusion through secular logic. However, the only basis of this secular logic is the fundamental acceptance that for governmental purposes, humans consider themselves superior to other species. If that is not a given, then I think there is no way to logically criminalize murder, and then this whole argument is moot.

Objectively, a young human is no better than a young rabbit, but apparently we're not objective. If it's no different physically with the embryo of an animal, except for some DNA, then why should it be granted *superhuman* rights, even? Social contract didn't have much to do with other species; it was drafted to ensure the stability of our own. I don't think animals entered the equation when social contract was first in use. They didn't place a higher value; they just want to live without the threat from their own species, something that is actually negotiable; unlike with other species. There's a 'secular logic'? I wasn't aware of that. I wasn't aware that seculars have a particular rule on anything. We had our own interests (as humans) in mind more than anything when we created the government. The fact that we live in a society shouldn't be excuse for subjectivity; social contract is something we can't change (unless you're ok with anarchy), but what we can be objective whenever possible. If the woman's rights are concerned, I think a little objectivity is needed, because we clearly have to choose between um... the lesser of the two 'wrongs'?

Now, I have to finish this essay in front of me and I can't reply, but thanks for your time. I'll follow up tomorrow.

TheLastMohican

04-14-2008, 10:18 AM

Objectively, a young human is no better than a young rabbit, but apparently we're not objective. If it's no different physically with the embryo of an animal, except for some DNA, then why should it be granted *superhuman* rights, even? Social contract didn't have much to do with other species; it was drafted to ensure the stability of our own. I don't think animals entered the equation when social contract was first in use. They didn't place a higher value; they just want to live without the threat from their own species, something that is actually negotiable; unlike with other species. There's a 'secular logic'? I wasn't aware of that. I wasn't aware that seculars have a particular rule on anything. We had our own interests (as humans) in mind more than anything when we created the government. The fact that we live in a society shouldn't be excuse for subjectivity; social contract is something we can't change (unless you're ok with anarchy), but what we can be objective whenever possible. If the woman's rights are concerned, I think a little objectivity is needed, because we clearly have to choose between um... the lesser of the two 'wrongs'?

(By "secular logic," I meant the argument of this point disregarding the religious aspect.)
We might as well ignore everything else until this is straightened out. This is the basic point from which all the others follow.
Apparently you believe that humans are not inherently better or more worthy of rights than animals, correct? Without God, I say that is true. But I think your argument for objectivity is moot, since I am arguing for government regulation, and government by nature, as you mentioned, is subjective. On a personal level, I am not trying to prove to an atheist that the fetus is worthy of the right to life. Consequently, I also think that the atheist should not think any human has the right to life, or that there are any real morals at all. All secular "reality" of these matters is selfish and subjective (not that that is a bad thing in this case).

Therefore, we can consider all natural rights to be nonexistent for the purposes of this debate. But this raises the question of the mother's rights. If she has no right to live, then she certainly has no right to be cleaned of parasites. Rights are out of the picture. It is just each one for his own, with no right or wrong course of action.

My main point is that my only objective grounds are those of God. You have no objective grounds whatsoever, besides the lack thereof. The only area of possible agreement is in the subjectivity of government. If that fails, then we must agree that it is impossible for us to agree, since we have different reference points, and there is no workable middle ground.

Agreed?

(Ironically, if we disagree on this, then we might yet agree on the argument at hand.)

Now, I have to finish this essay in front of me and I can't reply, but thanks for your time. I'll follow up tomorrow.

Why so polite? Whatever happened to INTJ brutality in debates? :p

vaguely dissatisfied

04-14-2008, 10:37 AM

The thing about abortion that always stops me in my tracks is this..............

Who gets to decide when a life becomes a life? And if we answer this question with, human beings get to decide when a life becomes a life, then the next question is by what criteria will human beings decide that a life has become a life? And the question after that is, why did they choose those particular criteria and not another set? Then, how do we know that this particular set of criteria are more accurate than another set of criteria? Then, even if we get the best set of criteria we can, how will we know that human beings are even capable of choosing when a life becomes a life? Perhaps we don't know enough to make that kind of decision. Perhaps it's no different than killing a bug. Perhaps it's the same as infanticide. Who can answer these questions?

TheLastMohican

04-14-2008, 10:53 AM

In real terms, God answers them. If you do not believe in God, next you turn to government, which is subjective.

For some, it doesn't matter at all anyway.

vaguely dissatisfied

04-14-2008, 11:21 AM

In real terms, God answers them. If you do not believe in God, next you turn to government, which is subjective.

For some, it doesn't matter at all anyway.
God........in real terms?

That's what I mean.....people (government) are subjective....how can you say that something is morally right or wrong based on a bunch of subjective criteria decided by a bunch of subjective people?

TheLastMohican

04-14-2008, 12:32 PM

God........in real terms?

That's what I mean.....people (government) are subjective....how can you say that something is morally right or wrong based on a bunch of subjective criteria decided by a bunch of subjective people?

By "real terms" I was saying God's terms would be more real than government, since government varies.

You can't make a moral judgement based on that. Morals are deeper. But you can create a system of rules by which you can make society workable. That is what I mean by government defining it.

vaguely dissatisfied

04-14-2008, 02:04 PM

By "real terms" I was saying God's terms would be more real than government, since government varies.

You can't make a moral judgement based on that. Morals are deeper. But you can create a system of rules by which you can make society workable. That is what I mean by government defining it.
God's terms are a bunch of stuff that subjective people made up a long time ago and told everyone that it was god's will.......still back to the subjective people.

True about laws and morals, but wasn't the original question one of morals?

TheLastMohican

04-14-2008, 02:10 PM

God's terms are a bunch of stuff that subjective people made up a long time ago and told everyone that it was god's will.......still back to the subjective people.

I believe differently. But for your purposes then, we are stuck with the subjective, correct? Then you cannot answer your questions satisfactorily, at least not in any way that I can think of.

True about laws and morals, but wasn't the original question one of morals?

Yes, it was. I was trying to bring in the laws because I do not know what you consider the basis for morals.

blueback

04-14-2008, 03:48 PM

Morality is always an individual decision. Sometimes people agree, but they still have to make choices individually.

Antares

04-14-2008, 03:58 PM

(By "secular logic," I meant the argument of this point disregarding the religious aspect.)
We might as well ignore everything else until this is straightened out. This is the basic point from which all the others follow.
Apparently you believe that humans are not inherently better or more worthy of rights than animals, correct? Without God, I say that is true. But I think your argument for objectivity is moot, since I am arguing for government regulation, and government by nature, as you mentioned, is subjective. On a personal level, I am not trying to prove to an atheist that the fetus is worthy of the right to life. Consequently, I also think that the atheist should not think any human has the right to life, or that there are any real morals at all. All secular "reality" of these matters is selfish and subjective (not that that is a bad thing in this case).

Therefore, we can consider all natural rights to be nonexistent for the purposes of this debate. But this raises the question of the mother's rights. If she has no right to live, then she certainly has no right to be cleaned of parasites. Rights are out of the picture. It is just each one for his own, with no right or wrong course of action.

My main point is that my only objective grounds are those of God. You have no objective grounds whatsoever, besides the lack thereof. The only area of possible agreement is in the subjectivity of government. If that fails, then we must agree that it is impossible for us to agree, since we have different reference points, and there is no workable middle ground.

Agreed?

To me, natural rights can only occur when one doesn't override the other. My position about women's rights hasn't changed. If you're the host, then your rights override the parasite's right to live. You can drive it out; or kill it. If we have to have a right to life, then it's by social contract. I'm not the government, so saying that to me would be useless; that argument might be useful in trying to overturn Roe v. Wade though. I believe in my right to live because heck.

I like social order, and we all care about ourselves and our families. Meaning: The law system is subjective, but we *have* to be. We all want to live a good life, and it's the only way to. What would happen if we start letting animals into our houses? We are organisms just like all of them; and we're selfish, but perhaps no more selfish than my dog (but since we're more powerful, the effects of this selfishness is more apparent). We're formed humans who can think, feel and are conscious, of course, then it raises the question of: "What does it inherently matter?" I would consider these advantages to the fetus, and since the fetus, is a human parasite to another human, and the mother doesn't have to sacrifice her chances of survival for the fetus. At rabbit embryos, we say: "What's the big deal?" But yet at human embryos, we yell: "Murder". Isn't that veiled hypocrisy? It won't affect me if some fetus is aborted, but it will affect me if my business partner's killed. That's why I think a grown human's life is more important; its present sphere of influence, at least, is much larger. And since potentiality is a fallacy, so I won't go into whether the fetus would have a bigger sphere later on. And unless zealots of either side decide to make a big deal out of it, the fetus will at most affect the family; if at all.

TLM: If God's your ultimate objectivity, so do you mean of the moralities that are taught by God, none of yours disagree or are any different?

TheLastMohican

04-14-2008, 04:50 PM

TLM: If God's your ultimate objectivity, so do you mean of the moralities that are taught by God, none of yours disagree or are any different?

Yes. If I disagreed with God, that would be my flaw, not His. I do not always succeed in following those moralities, of course. That is sin. But I do not disagree with the fundamental principles of morality that God has set forth.

Concerning the rest of your argument, I don't have anything more to say without getting redundant. Looking at our posts, we have both been repeating some of the same things with no progress. Assuming that your basic premise of the dependence upon social impact is unshakeable, there is no point here that I can convince you of.

Did you have any other final thougts? If not, I suggest we leave it.

Antares

04-14-2008, 06:41 PM

Yes. If I disagreed with God, that would be my flaw, not His. I do not always succeed in following those moralities, of course. That is sin. But I do not disagree with the fundamental principles of morality that God has set forth.

Concerning the rest of your argument, I don't have anything more to say without getting redundant. Looking at our posts, we have both been repeating some of the same things with no progress. Assuming that your basic premise of the dependence upon social impact is unshakable, there is no point here that I can convince you of.

Did you have any other final thoughts? If not, I suggest we leave it.

Are you sure God is objective? What makes you think he should be absolutely followed? What does your logic tell you? Blind acceptance of his morals, or questioning and the freedom to question? Why is it always your fault? I guess we differ here:

You think the fetus is equal to the woman even though it's physically dependent, and its right to live overrides the woman's right to control her body. I think the fetus owes it to the woman and it's at the woman's disposal whether or not she wants a parasite in her body; and if she doesn't, the parasite goes. My view is that the woman doesn't have to put herself at risk for anyone or anything. I guess we can't figure out a solution.

TheLastMohican

04-14-2008, 07:59 PM

Are you sure God is objective? What makes you think he should be absolutely followed? What does your logic tell you? Blind acceptance of his morals, or questioning and the freedom to question? Why is it always your fault? I guess we differ here:

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

I started a thread for this.

You think the fetus is equal to the woman even though it's physically dependent, and its right to live overrides the woman's right to control her body. I think the fetus owes it to the woman and it's at the woman's disposal whether or not she wants a parasite in her body; and if she doesn't, the parasite goes. My view is that the woman doesn't have to put herself at risk for anyone or anything. I guess we can't figure out a solution.

It would seem not, since we disagree on the most basic point. One last thought: It seems to me that your view dictates that whoever has the most power is automatically right. If the fetus had the ability to resist abortion, would it be wrong for him to do so, and remain in the mother? If the mother does not have any obligation to risk her health for the fetus, then the fetus likewise should not let himself be killed for the sake of the mother. It just depends on who holds the cards.

blueback

04-14-2008, 09:38 PM

It just depends on who holds the cards.

Well someone finally caught up to the rest of the class.

I have yet to see anyone publicly state that a mother who has an abortion should be charged with murder and thrown in jail. If it's obviously murder, then why isn't the need for punishment obvious?

Morality has nothing to do with universal rules of right and wrong; it has everything to do with the individuals involved in the decision.

TheLastMohican

04-14-2008, 09:48 PM

Well someone finally caught up to the rest of the class.

Your condescending tone is misplaced. I was not saying that I agree with Antares.

I have yet to see anyone publicly state that a mother who has an abortion should be charged with murder and thrown in jail. If it's obviously murder, then why isn't the need for punishment obvious?

It is murder on a moral level. It is not on a legal level, since there is no law against it. I think there should be such a law, but there is not, and until there is, no charges should be pressed against those who participate in abortions.

Morality has nothing to do with universal rules of right and wrong; it has everything to do with the individuals involved in the decision.

Which morality? I think that without God, there is no such thing as universal morality. In that case it is dependent upon each person's subjective viewpoint, and it should have no bearing upon law.

blueback

04-14-2008, 10:30 PM

Your condescending tone is misplaced. I was not saying that I agree with Antares.

No it's not. It drew attention to the fact that you ended your post with a point that should have rendered your entire post moot. My point was simply that you should have noticed that you were beginning to become coherent.

It is murder on a moral level. It is not on a legal level, since there is no law against it. I think there should be such a law, but there is not, and until there is, no charges should be pressed against those who participate in abortions.

Ah, you're avoiding the question. Would you throw an ex-mother in jail after she had an abortion? Would you throw a 15 year-old girl in jail after she aborted her father's rape baby? Would you throw a 35 year-old woman in jail after she had her 10th abortion?

Which morality? I think that without God, there is no such thing as universal morality. In that case it is dependent upon each person's subjective viewpoint, and it should have no bearing upon law.

So, if God's morality does exist then IT should have a bearing upon law, but human morality shouldn't?

What if God's morality does exist, but the Hindus got closer to it than the Christians?

Why can't we make laws based on the average, most-common morality? Are humans not capable of coming up with their own morality?

vaguely dissatisfied

04-15-2008, 03:41 AM

TheLastMohican

04-15-2008, 07:15 AM

If morality is an individual choice (and I agree that it is), then anything that is not punishable by law is basically up to the individual to decide.

So......abortion is not murder unless the individual having the abortion considers it murder.

I think there is an absolute truth here that abortion is murder. It doesn't really matter whether you think it is or not; it is.

However, the fact that many people disagree with me on this means that the goverment's approach is not as absolute (since government is made up of people). Currently abortion is legal according to the government, so on the social level, it is not murder. That would change depending on the government's laws.

Then, on the individual level, your statement is true, in that from one person's perspective, abortion might or might not be murder, regardless of the other two realities.

To sum up, abortion can be considered murder (or not) on three different levels: Absolute morality, governmental morality, and individual morality.
From my point of view the latter two are subjective and inconsistent, so I go by the first. However, many do not believe that the first even exists, and are thus restricted to the latter two.

When I say "abortion is murder," I am speaking of the truth that transcends all points of view, not something that can be based on one person's opinion. But what I am arguing on this thread is concerning the governmental morality, since the absolute morality has no meaning to many.

blueback

04-15-2008, 07:29 AM

So, uh, are you going to keep your source of absolute morality to yourself forever?

That would be a really useful piece of information for the rest of us to have. I'd love to be able to say I know what absolute morality is.

TheLastMohican

04-15-2008, 07:44 AM

No it's not. It drew attention to the fact that you ended your post with a point that should have rendered your entire post moot. My point was simply that you should have noticed that you were beginning to become coherent.

I have been coherent all along. My statement at the end of that post was a representation of Antares' argument; I want to know if that is what she actually thinks. I do not agree with that point of view.

It appears that you believe the statement is actually true. Do you?

Ah, you're avoiding the question. Would you throw an ex-mother in jail after she had an abortion? Would you throw a 15 year-old girl in jail after she aborted her father's rape baby? Would you throw a 35 year-old woman in jail after she had her 10th abortion?

I didn't mean to avoid the question. Didn't I answer it in the statement below?

I think there should be such a law, but there is not, and until there is, no charges should be pressed against those who participate in abortions.

To clarify: I would not imprison the women if there was not a law on the books against abortion. If there was a law, then I would. And if I could make the laws, then I would imprison (or punish in some way) those who had abortions.

So, if God's morality does exist then IT should have a bearing upon law, but human morality shouldn't?

I have repeatedly pointed out that I am not basing the legal aspect on God. I think abortion should be outlawed based on the role of government as it was created by humans: protecting human rights.

Human morality and its role in government is a difficult question, and would vary depending on the population. I think government should be based on the (subjective) logic of preserving humans. Like I said before, it is a cooperative association designed to provide an overall benefit to its citizens. I do not think it should be based solely upon public opinion, though. If 70% of the citizens believe that the other 30% should the persecuted for their religion, or some other situation like that, I think it does not make it right for the government.

The ideals of government are difficult to define. I know that certain situations are wrong, while others are right, but I do not know where we can determine the difference between good and bad policy, since we must accept that popular opinion is not always right.

What if God's morality does exist, but the Hindus got closer to it than the Christians?

I know little of what the Hindu morality is. But considering my above paragraph, this doesn't make much of any difference.

Why can't we make laws based on the average, most-common morality? Are humans not capable of coming up with their own morality?

Of course any human can come up with his own system of morality, but that morality is not necessarily right. Therefore basing the government on this can be dangerous. It is difficult to argue that the government should disagree with its own citizens, considering that its citizens comprise it and support it, but what would you say about a government like the Taliban? We think they are clearly wrong, but they think they are right. Their way of thinking does not make them inherently right, though.

Of course, on a human level we cannot say for certain that we are not the wrong ones. I do not have any definite answer for this mess, since it is wallowing in subjectivity.

TheLastMohican added to this post, 3 minutes and 24 seconds later...

So, uh, are you going to keep your source of absolute morality to yourself forever?

That would be a really useful piece of information for the rest of us to have. I'd love to be able to say I know what absolute morality is.

That absolute morality is God's. But as far as I know you do not believe God exists, so that absolute morality has no significance from your perspective. Therefore I might as well ignore it in this debate.

There is also the boggling question of "What Makes God Right?" This is assuming he exists, and I haven't thought of a concise answer yet.

vaguely dissatisfied

04-15-2008, 07:58 AM

I think there is an absolute truth here that abortion is murder. It doesn't really matter whether you think it is or not; it is.

However, the fact that many people disagree with me on this means that the goverment's approach is not as absolute (since government is made up of people). Currently abortion is legal according to the government, so on the social level, it is not murder. That would change depending on the government's laws.

Then, on the individual level, your statement is true, in that from one person's perspective, abortion might or might not be murder, regardless of the other two realities.

To sum up, abortion can be considered murder (or not) on three different levels: Absolute morality, governmental morality, and individual morality.
From my point of view the latter two are subjective and inconsistent, so I go by the first. However, many do not believe that the first even exists, and are thus restricted to the latter two.

When I say "abortion is murder," I am speaking of the truth that transcends all points of view, not something that can be based on one person's opinion. But what I am arguing on this thread is concerning the governmental morality, since the absolute morality has no meaning to many.
I have to say that I agree with blueback. 'Absolute truths' are extremely hard to come by. Opinions are a dime a dozen. For an individual to tell me that "....it doesn't really matter whether you think it is or not; it is....." indicates to me that there is no room for discussion in that person's mind because they don't value anyone's opinion but their own on the subject. If this person believes that they have knowledge about 'absolute truth' that many others are not privy to, then this may be why they don't value other's opinions about certain subjects. I could say it doesn't really matter what you think about abortion because the absolute truth is that abortion is not murder. I don't actually believe that your opinion doesn't matter nor do I believe that there is an absolute truth here.....but I can say it if I choose and I may even believe what I'm saying.

In my opinion, illegal does not necessarily equal immoral. However, if abortion were illegal because it was considered murder in the eyes of the law, then the question of whether or not abortion is murder would be answered yes. Since murder is a violent act, then the question of whether or not abortion is an act of violence would be answered yes. If I disagree with the law, then I would still answer the two above questions with a yes, but I would probably add some caveat about how I disagree with this law and so forth. If abortion never becomes illegal, then we are back to the questions about abortion being murder or a violent act in the realm of morality.

Morality is based on individual choice whether the person chooses to follow christianity or buddism or some other form of religion or whether an individual chooses to make it up as they go.......it is still a matter of individual choice.

TheLastMohican

04-15-2008, 08:08 AM

vaguely dissatisfied

04-15-2008, 08:22 AM

Vague, I agree with what you are saying, but I also categorize the moralities, so maybe that is where we differ.

There is no (or only the smallest amount of) room in my mind for the discussion of the validity of my view, in that I am very confident of its correctness. Understand here that I am discounting that view for the purpose of this debate, since I understand that you do not agree with that view. I am open to debate about the human definitions of murder and such, but those will not change the fact that I believe it is murder, since in my point of view I go beyond the human definitions.

In other words, I am doing ya'll a big favor. ;)
TLM Well.....thank you for the favor.

If it makes any difference to you....I respect your opinion on the subject of abortion. I do not think that I could have an abortion. I think that I would be plagued with guilt if I were to make such a choice (I do not believe in god and am not religious in any way). However, I know other individuals who have made that choice and are not plagued with guilt because they don't believe they have done anything immoral. What's interesting here is that I respect their opinion and choice and think no differently about them than I would someone who had made the same choice as me. This is because I am far from certain about my feelings on this subject. That is because my feelings are based on something other than facts and I know that my feelings can't always be trusted. I can't ignore my feelings, but I don't let them have absolute control over me either.

Brutananadilewski

04-15-2008, 09:21 AM

I think there is an absolute truth here that abortion is murder. It doesn't really matter whether you think it is or not; it is.

Thinking there is an absolute truth does not make it so. For the purposes of a debate, if you can't substantiate the existence of an absolute truth with evidence other than the assertion of a personal belief, then it is a failed argument, and I'm left to rationally conclude that an absolute truth does not exist.

However, the fact that many people disagree with me on this means that the goverment's approach is not as absolute (since government is made up of people). Currently abortion is legal according to the government, so on the social level, it is not murder. That would change depending on the government's laws.

Then, on the individual level, your statement is true, in that from one person's perspective, abortion might or might not be murder, regardless of the other two realities.

To sum up, abortion can be considered murder (or not) on three different levels: Absolute morality, governmental morality, and individual morality.
From my point of view the latter two are subjective and inconsistent, so I go by the first. However, many do not believe that the first even exists, and are thus restricted to the latter two.

Can you offer me an substantive reason as to why the latter two are inconsistent and subjective, and the first isn't? Without reasons, this isn't an argument. Furthermore, I would say that a lack of belief in the first level is liberating rather than restrictive; we're free to define morality as human beings in terms of what's important to us, rather than not ever having that freedom. If you acknowledge the first level exists, then your own moral views are entirely irrelevant, as morality has already been defined. This is quenching the human flame, whereas a denouncement of the first level allows that flame to shine like a beacon. Bear in mind that denouncement of the first level in and of itself does not liberate morality. If the first level did exist, then denouncement would be a foolish and pointless endeavor. However, in the absence of any evidence for the existence of a first level, the most rational conclusion would be to ignore the concept when dealing with morality.

When I say "abortion is murder," I am speaking of the truth that transcends all points of view, not something that can be based on one person's opinion. But what I am arguing on this thread is concerning the governmental morality, since the absolute morality has no meaning to many.

I have yet to see any substance to support the claim of an absolute truth, and it therefore has no meaning to me not because I chose not to acknowledge it, but because reason dictates that the concept is irrelevant in light of the fact that there's no supporting objective evidence.

Antares

04-15-2008, 09:44 AM

It would seem not, since we disagree on the most basic point. One last thought: It seems to me that your view dictates that whoever has the most power is automatically right. If the fetus had the ability to resist abortion, would it be wrong for him to do so, and remain in the mother? If the mother does not have any obligation to risk her health for the fetus, then the fetus likewise should not let himself be killed for the sake of the mother. It just depends on who holds the cards.

It does work like that. Except most of the time it's the parasite who's killed. The parasite has no moral obligation to leave for the sake of the host; in fact, it would fight the medication until the very end. That would make sense. But the case is different with the fetus. The woman can think, feel, and has no obligation to risk her own life for the fetus, therefore allowed to drive it out. Fairly, the fetus should be able to say the same thing, but the fetus can't think; the fetus can't speak, and no one can objectively speak for the fetus. Both the fetus and the parasite (in most cases), are the weaker party.

I think there is an absolute truth here that abortion is murder. It doesn't really matter whether you think it is or not; it is.

Murder = Illegal killing. War is not murder, except for war crimes.

What happened to your infinite sentence philosophy?

I have repeatedly pointed out that I am not basing the legal aspect on God. I think abortion should be outlawed based on the role of government as it was created by humans: protecting human rights.

I, however still find that your argument lacks the consideration for the woman's right not to risk themselves for another.

There is no (or only the smallest amount of) room in my mind for the discussion of the validity of my view, in that I am very confident of its correctness. Understand here that I am discounting that view for the purpose of this debate, since I understand that you do not agree with that view. I am open to debate about the human definitions of murder and such, but those will not change the fact that I believe it is murder, since in my point of view I go beyond the human definitions.

Doesn't this make debate very hard in some aspects? I think everyone should accept their fallibility and hear people out with open mind, entertaining the possibility that they might be convinced or provoked to think. Also, in debates, it doesn't really matter what you believe ;) We go by the definitions, the facts and the logic.