Mr. Card, I know you've brought up the topic of abortion in some of your articles, but this is a topic that I've been trying to resolve my stance on for some time now. As far as religion and ethics go, what are your thoughts about life beginning at the moment of conception? What do you think about pro-life movements that want an end to abortion? If you get a chance to respond to this I would really appreciate it. Thanks a lot and have a great Christmas!
Posted by Lucky_Sean (Member # 6223) on :
Well before and if Mr.Cards responce kicks in, I'll off my simple student's perpesctive. It isn't your average student as I am actually religious, however I of course like all university students are entirely liberal to one extent or another.
Basically to start with a few common ideas, I don't like the idea of "month counting." That those who believe before a certain month it doesn't really count as the child is not concious or doesn't have a soul. Regardless of when you do it, you basically do it. However that is not to say that it is terrible or shouldn't happen or anything like that.
A child does not develop really into a person until it is personified from birth and experiance. Many children die in birth for one complication or another, this is sad and can be a terrible loss - I was a baby who nearly had this happen being born at 4lbs and 5 ounces. My family's determination to keep me alive though saught me through that and well here I am. However if I were to die it would have been understandable. Quite simply I don't recall such an experiance, I recall later health problems but I cannot recall my first year or so of life. That is not to say it isn't a part of whom I am just I myself as a person have not yet been developed.
I would feel no loss, others may but I would not. In the end what someone needs to consider is what is best for the baby. If you cannot bring a child into a loving family, it is not financially feasable, you are alone, you have been drinking with the child etc. There are many rationalizations but essentially I believe it boils down to what would the best be for the babys life with your own? There is no reason to force a 16 year old girl into having a child because she wasn't careful with sex, it wouldn't help both of them. As well if she decides to, then power to her, she may prove to flouish within adversity.
Fate I believe has a role in this as well, I believe that the world comes down to choice, simple of course but conflicting in nature. If we choose how can we have fate? I believe that fate has general paths and turns based off our choices, maybe a person has a particular urge to have an abortion or not to. In the end though it comes to choice and as always in life there will be continued balance from it.
So to sum many rambling thoughts, I belive that life isn't just given a soul or not. That the first moments of life do not determine a person, it is what happens henceforth. That to decide for an abortion should be what is best for the baby, is it possible for me to do this so the child can flourish. As well as ultimatly what is best for you? Are you stopping cause it may interfere with your career or because you yourself are still a child and would fear to have those early times in adulthood with a child. This is why I believe people should decide to have a child, not just fall into one unless falling into one was a possible part of their relationship.
Hope that provides some ideas to help you decide your own opinion.
Posted by Omega M. (Member # 7924) on :
quote:But keep in mind that I don't actually believe that the soul takes possession of the body at the time of conception. I don't think abortion is the exact equivalent of murder. And there are circumstances, in my opinion, where abortion is justified or even essential. But I recognize that good people can disagree with me in both directions.
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lucky_Sean: Well before and if Mr.Cards responce kicks in, I'll off my simple student's perpesctive. It isn't your average student as I am actually religious, however I of course like all university students are entirely liberal to one extent or another.
Basically to start with a few common ideas, I don't like the idea of "month counting." That those who believe before a certain month it doesn't really count as the child is not concious or doesn't have a soul. Regardless of when you do it, you basically do it. However that is not to say that it is terrible or shouldn't happen or anything like that.
A child does not develop really into a person until it is personified from birth and experiance. Many children die in birth for one complication or another, this is sad and can be a terrible loss - I was a baby who nearly had this happen being born at 4lbs and 5 ounces. My family's determination to keep me alive though saught me through that and well here I am. However if I were to die it would have been understandable. Quite simply I don't recall such an experiance, I recall later health problems but I cannot recall my first year or so of life. That is not to say it isn't a part of whom I am just I myself as a person have not yet been developed.
I would feel no loss, others may but I would not. In the end what someone needs to consider is what is best for the baby. If you cannot bring a child into a loving family, it is not financially feasable, you are alone, you have been drinking with the child etc. There are many rationalizations but essentially I believe it boils down to what would the best be for the babys life with your own? There is no reason to force a 16 year old girl into having a child because she wasn't careful with sex, it wouldn't help both of them. As well if she decides to, then power to her, she may prove to flouish within adversity.
Fate I believe has a role in this as well, I believe that the world comes down to choice, simple of course but conflicting in nature. If we choose how can we have fate? I believe that fate has general paths and turns based off our choices, maybe a person has a particular urge to have an abortion or not to. In the end though it comes to choice and as always in life there will be continued balance from it.
So to sum many rambling thoughts, I belive that life isn't just given a soul or not. That the first moments of life do not determine a person, it is what happens henceforth. That to decide for an abortion should be what is best for the baby, is it possible for me to do this so the child can flourish. As well as ultimatly what is best for you? Are you stopping cause it may interfere with your career or because you yourself are still a child and would fear to have those early times in adulthood with a child. This is why I believe people should decide to have a child, not just fall into one unless falling into one was a possible part of their relationship.
Hope that provides some ideas to help you decide your own opinion.
I really like what you wrote. Except in the case of thinking of what is best for the baby. Maybe its because I'm male, engaged, and in my mid-twenties, I will never have this fear. But when people make this argument I never understand why they never think of putting the child up for adoption. (Outside of cases of rape and incest.)
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
I haven't found the point at which life doesn't exist (even prior to conception, the gametes are alive), so I agree that setting an gestational age cut off is not really sitting well with me these days.
I don't know of other alternatives (other than gestational age) that would be workable/enforceable and still give women the legal ability to choose whether to complete a pregnancy or not.
And I'm not ready to say that we should outlaw abortion or equate it to murder.
Posted by Will B (Member # 7931) on :
I think what's relevant is the presence of a nervous system. Babies that can feel pain -- and they do -- shouldn't be tortured to death. We can say it's best for a child to die in agony, but their physical reactions -- grimacing, jerking, attempting to cry -- suggest that's just a rationalization; they don't want a painful death any more than we would.
[ December 13, 2005, 09:47 AM: Message edited by: Will B ]
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
quote:I don't know of other alternatives (other than gestational age) that would be workable/enforceable and still give women the legal ability to choose whether to complete a pregnancy or not.
I only see this as important where they were not given a choice about starting the pregnancy. I new idea I just had is that women can do a pre-conception contract with the baby's father about whether such and such defects are worth scrapping a potential life over. I think the existence of such contracts might lend more gravity to the conception process.
Posted by Eva Scrye (Member # 8960) on :
I recall reading a statistic that claimed that only about 2% of abortions were due to rape-pregnancies or health dangers.
It seems to me it always comes down to the fact that, besides some very unfortunate, yet rare, circumstances, women HAVE the choice of having a child or not. It's called choosing to have sex or not, not choosing whether to accept the consequences of that action or not, at the expense of an innocent who has yet to make any action at all.
Posted by sweetbaboo (Member # 8845) on :
Well said Eva. I agree, it is the responsibility of the people deciding to have sex to accept the consequences of their actions, and not dismiss them in a quick procedure. I was adopted into a loving family but could easily have been ended in abortion. There are other alternatives.
Posted by cheiros do ender (Member # 8849) on :
What exactly is the argument behind banning abortion? Certainly these people don’t think denying a conceived baby birth is playing god. If it was God’s will to want all conceived babies born He would not let women fall pregnant from rape in the first place, don’t you think? Then there’s history. A number of women have died from giving birth too many times, under customs similar to the idea that abortion be banned. And yet do these people learn from history?
It should be the choice of the parents, with help deciding from their own community, whether or not being brought into this world is worthwhile for the child.
Edit: I would answer the below question fully, but it's my 100th post coming up and I want to make it a good one. I don't know why, I just do. I will say though, I don't think ones community "getting together" is neccessary for them to advise you. ANd by community I don't mean your neighbours and the like, I mean the people close to you whom you allow to help you make important decisions in cases like these.
[ December 21, 2005, 12:47 PM: Message edited by: cheiros do ender ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:What exactly is the argument behind banning abortion? Certainly these people don’t think denying a conceived baby birth is playing god.
Many of us believe it is the intentional killing of an innocent human being.
quote:If it was God’s will to want all conceived babies born He would not let women fall pregnant from rape in the first place, don’t you think?
No. Why you think I would think that?
quote:Then there’s history. A number of women have died from giving birth too many times, under customs similar to the idea that abortion be banned. And yet do these people learn from history?
You're reason for supporting leaglized abortion is that, in the past, giving birth too many times was lethal?
quote:It should be the choice of the parents, with help deciding from their own community, whether or not being brought into this world is worthwhile for the child.
So you'd be comfortable with the idea of your community getting together right now and passing judgment on whether you should have been brought into the world?
How many people do you know who truly believe they wish they had never been born?
Posted by BGgurl (Member # 8541) on :
quote:Many of us believe it is the intentional killing of an innocent human being.
Dagonee, why do you believe this? Is there any evidence you can give to support your belief?
Posted by A Rat Named Dog (Member # 699) on :
quote:Is there any evidence you can give to support your belief?
The whole problem here is the fact that there is little, if any, evidence that "proves" one side to be right or wrong about the point at which human life begins.
Some say, "Look, we don't know when life starts, so for heaven's sake, let's not kill anything that might be human."
Others say, "Look, we don't know when life starts, so you can't prove that abortion is a bad thing, while I CAN prove that a lot of other bad things would happen if we don't allow abortions."
And others, naturally, say other things. There are nearly as many different opinions on this topic as there are people.
Basically, in the absence of any universally-agreed-upon facts about the moment when life begins, this whole debate becomes about human value judgments, which are, by their nature, highly subjective.
Posted by Eva Scrye (Member # 8960) on :
Well said er.. Rat? Or do you go by Dog?
I guess I'm just the type that doesn't look to new 'techniques' to manage my life and family. If I don't want children, I don't have sex, end of story. Obviously there's the other argument about birth control, but no need to get into that now. At least not in this thread.
But I agree that this is not the standpoint of all people, and I respect their views.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Eva, that's quite possibly the first time I've ever seen someone, on their first try, correctly divine that "A Rat Named Dog" goes by "Dog." Posted by Hank (Member # 8916) on :
You may remember that a few years back there was this huge public outrage about some teenaged girl who got pregnant and remained basically in denial about it until she actually gave birth, then she killed the baby and just left it. At the time I couldn't help thinking, "Gee, if she'd killed it a few months sooner, noone would have said anything." I think that every child which takes root in any uterus is entitled to live. Period. There are extreme circumstances, such as women who would die if they gave birth, but for every woman like that I think there are hundreds or thousands of people who destroy that life for no other reason than their convenience. I include pregnant teenagers in this category (inconvenience) because I think they are only being selfish in choosing abortion. There are so many families that would LOVE to adopt a baby, and would even help pay for hospital expenses in some cases. Even if these girls are not ready to be mothers, they are kidding themselves if they think that abortion somehow benefits the baby. Maybe this sounds really extremeist. But women who get pregnant when they are not in a position to raise a child have already proven themselves to be irresponsible--and their "Community" obviously hasn't kept them from making dumb decisions in the past. I think that if we as a society decide that it is ever okay for someone with that kind of decision-making track record gets to choose whether someone gets to live or not, then we are definitely headed down a bad road.
Posted by Eva Scrye (Member # 8960) on :
Hehe, well said Hank.
Posted by airmanfour (Member # 6111) on :
Abortion makes for a healthier world. not necessarily better, mind you, but most definately healthier.
Posted by A Rat Named Dog (Member # 699) on :
Healthier ... unless you believe that life starts earlier, in which case, all those deaths tend to tip the health balance the other way.
(Eva, Tom is right. I go by Dog, and I am amazed that you caught on. You rock!)
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
quote:Originally posted by BGgurl:
quote:Many of us believe it is the intentional killing of an innocent human being.
Dagonee, why do you believe this? Is there any evidence you can give to support your belief?
::scratches head::
It's the logical position. The point of viability keeps getting pushed back further and further, and you would insist that the mere technicality of not having passed through the birth canal--or been removed through cesarean section--yet makes one not human? Not alive? I think that's an exceptionally audacious claim, and that the burden of proof is on you.
-o-
Most Lucky_Sean's argument, as far as I can tell, can be applied to infanticide as easily as to abortion. He claims that birth somehow changes things, but goes on to admit that the death of a born infant is no great tragedy. Based on his logic, I don't see how he can favor legalizing abortion but outlawing infanticide. Unless it's, you know, an arbitrary line.
-o-
quote:A number of women have died from giving birth too many times, under customs similar to the idea that abortion be banned. And yet do these people learn from history?
A far, far larger number of unborn human beings have died in legal and illegal abortions. Do abortion advocates not learn from history?
Posted by Penta (Member # 8950) on :
I am...conflicted.
On the one hand, abortion is bad. Let me be simple about that. As a Catholic who has looked into the theology on it, I can say that easily.
But I'm not sure banning it is a smart idea.
We know what back-alley abortions look like from before Roe v Wade...And I think everybody can agree, we don't want those back. Legal abortions are safe abortions.
My thoughts:
1. Encourage adoptions. If need be, bend the first amendment into a pretzel, and fund religious efforts. Defense used? Public funds could not do this. There is a compelling state interest to encourage adoptions. Ergo, religious groups are allowed equal access and very limited and strictly audited funding. (By strictly audited: GAO gets rights to unannounced, no-knock looks at their operations and their books, the same as any other federal program. You take federal money, you take the federal whip.) Same time, advertise it. Deploy the PSAs in spades, and require abortion clinics to refer women to adoption agencies.
2. The thought of a waiting period does appeal.
3. Restrict abortions. Don't ban em, but restrict em. At the same time, make it clear that illegal procedures get both sides jailed.
4. Be sensible. If you're going to restrict abortions, loosen restrictions (at least, as medical advice indicates is prudent) on contraception, and don't be afraid to distribute it. Even Catholicism bends; contraception is bad, but abortion is worse. Contraception can be forgiven. Abortion...yes, but not so much.
Posted by Hank (Member # 8916) on :
thanks, Penta, that's a really well-balanced answer. It makes alot of sense.
Posted by cheiros do ender (Member # 8849) on :
I agree, except...
quote:GAO gets rights to unannounced, no-knock looks at their operations and their books, the same as any other federal program.
Do you mean all their finacial records, or just those in regard to the topic at hand. If the former, I don't think this could work.
Posted by davjonz (Member # 8962) on :
I am anti-abortion save for those rare circumstances where the mother could be killed (and usually the child with her) during birth. Abortion has touched my family. That touch was cold and painful for everyone involved and led to the estrangement of my parents and one of my sisters for many, many years. But I believe abortion should remain legal.
And yet, at the same time, I see a number of logic foils on both sides of the table.
First, if you talk about abortion killing elements of human life, then you had better ban both menstruation and masturbation. Most boys are blithely killing sperm from about 13 onward with no intention of creating a baby (despite their fervent wish to practice).
And what about stem cell research? The U.S. is falling behind in this unique, fast-paced area because we don't want scientists fertilizing eggs only to rip them apart to harvest stem cells. Countries like India are fast outpacing us and we have no means to catch up since the few lines granted by President Bush are running (may have already run) out.
But what if you believe abortion is okay? Well, how far do you take it? Senator Barbara Boxer (D) would have babies aborted very late in their development: http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Printable.asp?ID=2973 As would many of her supporters -- hers is not a tiny constituency.
So should abortion be banned? What about those girls who, according to physicians, would face mortal danger should they bring a baby to term? What should we tell those girls if we ban abortion? "Sorry, Tina, but you shouldn't have had sex with your boyfriend." Or worse, "Sorry, Tina, you shouldn't have been raped by that mugger."
It's a tough issue and it's not going anywhere. I think the best we can do is make our own decisions and stick by them. So long as abortion is legal, no one is FORCED to have an abortion against their personal/religious beliefs. If you think abortion is murder, then don't do it. It's like murdering an adult. If you don't believe in doing it, then you don't do it. You haven't thus far anyway, right?
Of course I see the flaw in such logic. We are male and female. If the man wishes to keep a baby and the woman wishes to abort it, what is the man left to do? Cry to the courts maybe, if he has time. Perhaps he should have gotten to know the woman better before he knew her carnally. But that's easy to say and harder to live.
Too bad this world isn't perfect.
Posted by cheiros do ender (Member # 8849) on :
I don't think it should be banned, but I do think it would help if women had to go through the judicial system to get an abortion, though it would have to be rather quickly in a lot of cases. Maybe it already does {I'm not American), but if that's the case banning it would take away a persons right to the judicial system... well I don't know about the judicial system in regard the the constitution and whatnot... whatever.
Anyway, next point:
quote:So should abortion be banned? What about those girls who, according to physicians, would face mortal danger should they bring a baby to term? What should we tell those girls if we ban abortion? "Sorry, Tina, but you shouldn't have had sex with your boyfriend." Or worse, "Sorry, Tina, you shouldn't have been raped by that mugger.
If you ban abortion then those girls will be forced to bring a baby into this world with an unqualified, single teenage mother who'll probably never get anywhere further in her education because she has a baby to look after.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:If you ban abortion then those girls will be forced to bring a baby into this world with an unqualified, single teenage mother who'll probably never get anywhere further in her education because she has a baby to look after.
Unless she lets somebody else adopt it.
Which, in my view, is the best choice.
Posted by airmanfour (Member # 6111) on :
Dog, i didn't say anything about the human population becoming healthier, i used the word world.
Posted by Penta (Member # 8950) on :
quote:Originally posted by cheiros do ender: I agree, except...
quote:GAO gets rights to unannounced, no-knock looks at their operations and their books, the same as any other federal program.
Do you mean all their finacial records, or just those in regard to the topic at hand. If the former, I don't think this could work.
Unless they work from separate accounts and through separate corporate entities (which is done already by Catholic Charities, which is simply a corporate subsidiary of the local diocese/archdiocese), yes.
For one thing, if one entity keeps multiple books, that's accounting fraud. Every financial entity is supposed to have ONE set of books.
Posted by Omega M. (Member # 7924) on :
I'm pretty much indifferent to the plight of unborn humans per se, as they can't tell their side of the story and make you feel for them the way other marginalized groups can, and I can't imagine they can fear pain and death the way, say, anyone over five years old can. But I'm for banning all abortion because it seems that any other restriction will always encourage people to loosen it just a little more until we're killing people we decide later we really didn't want to kill. After all, how much different is a baby one day after birth from a baby one day before it starts being born? (And the same question applies to any other time.)
To be consistent, I'd also ban any medical techniques that involve creating and killing genetically distinct embryos, and birth control devices whose sole purpose is to prevent embryos from implanting. I will allow the pill, even though one of the things it does is make it harder for embryos to implant, because that's more of a side effect than a main function (and thus can't be distinguished reliably from a number of other everyday things that may make it a little harder for embryos to implant).
I wish I had a more original argument, but there you go.
Posted by cheiros do ender (Member # 8849) on :
quote:I wish I had a more original argument, but there you go.
Well, you've just converted me to your side of the argument. It might not have been original, but it was certainly the best written I've ever seen on the subject.
Or maybe I'll change back later. We'll see.
Posted by Eva Scrye (Member # 8960) on :
First, I've got to say, this is by far the most intelligent and level-headed discussion regarding this topic I've ever taken part in... So kudos to everyone!
Something Davjonz mentioned triggered something in my mind. He suggested that since abortion is forced on no one, that it becomes a decision. And this decision does not actually affect those who dislike abortion.
It's a similar situation, IMHO, with us up here in Canada. We legalized and legitimized gay marriage fairly recently. I was quite frustrated with the whole situation, but after some discussion with a friend I realized that it doesn't really matter to me. I'm not gay, and it doesn't actually affect me if gays can marry in my town, regardless of whether I believe it to be morally wrong or not.
This brings us to the problem of believing we have a solution for society that society is blind to. We may believe that society is best off not allowing abortions, but if another person's decision to do something we consider immoral *actually* harmful to us in any way?
Thus, my stance has become increasingly less politically-minded. If someone is in anguish over the decision of abortion, and comes to me for advice, then yes, I will tell her my feelings on the subject in as loving and supportive way as I know how. But I'm not sure, exactly, how trying to alter the "rules" of society is actually showing empathy with anyone.
Essentially, I look at these issues from a much more personal standpoint.
But I, like others here, am a bit on the fence on several side issues. All I can say for suredness, is that *I* would *never* consider an abortion unless the person's life were directly threatened. And even then I would have difficulty accepting it.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Something Davjonz mentioned triggered something in my mind. He suggested that since abortion is forced on no one, that it becomes a decision. And this decision does not actually affect those who dislike abortion.
...
This brings us to the problem of believing we have a solution for society that society is blind to. We may believe that society is best off not allowing abortions, but if another person's decision to do something we consider immoral *actually* harmful to us in any way?
...
But I'm not sure, exactly, how trying to alter the "rules" of society is actually showing empathy with anyone.
All these statements rely on the assumption that the unborn child is unworthy of protection. While it's true that even if abortion is the killing of a human being, a particular abortion doesn't "affect" most people in society, that has never been a criterion applied to laws restricting the ability of one person to end another person's life.
Taken to it's extreme, all law is an expression of morality. It's not a question of an action being taken that is considered immoral "affecting" us, but of it affecting the unborn child who will be killed.
As for altering "rules" showing empathy, it can and does. The 13th amendment, which severely altered the rules of society, exists because some people could feel empathy for a group that man did not consider human beings.
Posted by Omega M. (Member # 7924) on :
quote:Originally posted by Eva Scrye:
Something Davjonz mentioned triggered something in my mind. He suggested that since abortion is forced on no one, that it becomes a decision. And this decision does not actually affect those who dislike abortion.
No, that particular abortion doesn't; but as I said above, will allowing some unborn babies to be killed encourage people to allow slightly older unborn babies to be killed, and then just-born babies, and then ...? I know you can draw a lot of wrong conclusions from the slippery slope argument; but I don't think I'm wrong using it in this case, since (in my opinion) the reasons given for, say, not allowing just-born babies to be killed but allowing babies to be killed at any time before birth feel ad hoc. (The baby isn't that much more physically developed once it's born, and it's not that much more self-aware.)
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: Taken to it's extreme, all law is an expression of morality.
I don't, personally, agree with this. I believe laws [should] exist to sort out the gray areas where our rights collide, and to protect our rights.
However, I believe unborn babies should have rights and be entitled to legal protection. Eva, your argument might work on those who believe this is a religious issue: those who put up billboards with Jesus or Mary and saying abortion is a sin. I'm not the least bit interested in using the law to prevent sin if I don't perceive it as tangibly hurting anyone. But to me this isn't a private issue, or a victimless crime, and so I can't fathom the attitude that says well, this is immoral, but I don't want to impose my morality, so I think it should remain legal. All I can imagine is that your only reason for thinking it is immoral is that your religious leaders told you it is, but you don't see any other reason for it.
-o-
quote:Originally posted by davjonz: First, if you talk about abortion killing elements of human life, then you had better ban both menstruation and masturbation. Most boys are blithely killing sperm from about 13 onward with no intention of creating a baby (despite their fervent wish to practice).
(Reductio ad Absurdum meets The Strawman?)
This is an--intentional?--misphrasing of the position. Nobody but you has used the phrase "elements" of human life. I believe that at some point before birth, a fetus is a human being. Nobody here has argued that a gamete is a human being. A gamete has none of the features of a human being. For one thing, a gamete does not have the same number of chromosomes as a human being; for another, it is not genetically distinct. Gametes also will not grow into a human being by themselves, no matter how much you nurture and protect them. Gametes also, quite apart from masturbation, die by the millions everyday through menstruation and nocturnal seminal emissions. I'm not aware of anybody seriously arguing that we extend the legal protection of human life to gametes.
So gametes are off of one end of the spectrum. Virtually everybody agrees that they are not human beings. Babies are off of the other end. Virtually everybody agrees that babies are human beings and deserve protection. In between is the gray area. Now, I would argue that infants that are clearly viable, such as last trimester fetuses, should not be in any sort of gray area at all, but many abortion advocates would disagree. Like Bob, I don't believe that we can know where in that gray area human life begins. But unlike Bob, I don't believe that we should therefore ignore the gray altogether. I don't see allowing women to choose whether or not to complete a pregnancy as the higher value in this case. So, seeing that on one side of the spectrum we have a human being, and that we don't know when that begins to be true, I think we should err on the side of protecting human life and, if not outlaw abortion altogether, then at least push it back to earlier points in the pregnancy, and restrict it in other ways as well.
EDIT to tone it down, if you can believe that . . .
[ December 24, 2005, 01:16 PM: Message edited by: Icarus ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:I don't, personally, agree with this. I believe laws [should] exist to sort out the gray areas where our rights collide, and to protect our rights.
Then you view law as an expression of the moral tenet that people should not interfere with the exercise of the rights of other beyond a certain point. Otherwise law wouldn't be necessary.
Posted by Eva Scrye (Member # 8960) on :
That's a good argument Dagonee (in your reply to my post). I'll take all that into consideration from now on. Same to you as well, Omega.
Icarus, I think you slightly misunderstand my position (or I failed to explain, which is just as likely). It's not about me 'not imposing my morality', nor is it that I rely on my religious leaders to tell me what is right. It's simply that I see my place in this as not being political, but as being personal. I can't see myself at a rally with a poster, but I can see myself giving counsel to those in distress about the issue.
After further thought, I agree that my stance was not fair, as the child *is* obviously harmed, thus rendering my parallel to gay marriage to be useless.
Wow... great forum, you guys have some awesome stuff to say.
Edit: Typos, this keyboard is rather faulty.
Posted by A Rat Named Dog (Member # 699) on :
quote:Dog, i didn't say anything about the human population becoming healthier, i used the word world.
airman, I'm trying to decide ... does this opinion make you varelse? Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I think it depends on whether you can understand his opinion or not. Posted by Hank (Member # 8916) on :
I'd like to address the sentiment that, "Oh, the real question isn't whether abortion is wrong or not, it's whether we should legislate it or not." I've given this alot of thought, and the thing is, ALL laws impose the values held by the majority on those who do not agree with those values. Most of these are so universally held that we don't realize that that is what we are doing. For example, the law forbids intentional murder of another human being without cause (such as self-defense). That is because society at large thinks that it is morally wrong to murder people. Serial killers don't feel that they have done anything wrong. They hold a different value system. Unfortunately for them, society doesn't agree with them, so we have laws that allow us to put them in prison or possible execute them for acting on a different value system than that held by the majority of society. We as a society are perfectly within our rights to impose our values on others.
The real argument is that in america, we believe in individual freedom, and so the law generally does not impose on citizens unless they're behaviour is imposing on other members of society. So the real question is the same one we've been arguing all along. Are unborn children members of society?
Posted by macnewbold (Member # 7660) on :
To echo something Eva said, congrats to everyone on having a very rational and insightful discussion on a very complicated, emotional, moral topic. I enjoyed reading it, and many of you bring up some very good points. Thanks!
Posted by BaoQingTian (Member # 8775) on :
quote:Originally posted by davjonz: First, if you talk about abortion killing elements of human life, then you had better ban both menstruation and masturbation. Most boys are blithely killing sperm from about 13 onward with no intention of creating a baby (despite their fervent wish to practice).
This was already addressed
quote: And what about stem cell research? The U.S. is falling behind in this unique, fast-paced area because we don't want scientists fertilizing eggs only to rip them apart to harvest stem cells. Countries like India are fast outpacing us and we have no means to catch up since the few lines granted by President Bush are running (may have already run) out.
Yes, let's ask Dr Hwang Woo-suk about the amazing success in this area of research.
quote: So should abortion be banned? What about those girls who, according to physicians, would face mortal danger should they bring a baby to term? What should we tell those girls if we ban abortion? "Sorry, Tina, but you shouldn't have had sex with your boyfriend." Or worse, "Sorry, Tina, you shouldn't have been raped by that mugger."
Someone cited a statistic that about 2% of abortions performed are for the mother's health or rape. Additionally most people against abortion do make an exception for these cases.
quote: It's a tough issue and it's not going anywhere. I think the best we can do is make our own decisions and stick by them. So long as abortion is legal, no one is FORCED to have an abortion against their personal/religious beliefs. If you think abortion is murder, then don't do it. It's like murdering an adult. If you don't believe in doing it, then you don't do it. You haven't thus far anyway, right?
Although I wouldn't personally murder an adult, I support legislation outlawing this. In the case of abortion however, the potiential victims have no voice.
quote: Too bad this world isn't perfect.
It isn't perfect. But I'm a little bit tired of hearing the argument, 'If it doesn't affect me, then who am I to tell others what to do.' IMO this is cowardly. We are each part of our respective communities, and we should strive to improve them in every way we can, from personal one on one help to being a voice for change to voting for legislation that we see as necessary.
If your faith plays a part in defining your morals, then a final thought that I'm trying to figure out how to express (i'm sure I'll bungle it). If something is taught as wrong by our religion yet we don't see the harm to ourself or our community if others practice it (so-called victimless sins/crimes), then perhaps we need to either re-evaluate our faith or re-examine the apparent lack of harm.
Posted by Eva Scrye (Member # 8960) on :
Well said, and well summed up!
I never thought I'd say this, but I'm almost sad to see this thread slowing down. Usually I'm desperate for the debate to end @_@
Posted by pwiscombe (Member # 181) on :
quote: Legal abortions are safe abortions.
Might be safer for the mother, but not very safe for the baby.
I can't buy the logical argument that you should legalize something because people are going to do it one way or another.
--- I guess the biggest issues I have with the abortion debate is how it seems to throw logic out the window.
Examples: 1) My daughter can't be given an asprin at school without a signed consent from a parent, but she can get an abortion without my knowledge.
2) The so-called Partial Birth Abortion ban was thrown out because there wasn't an exemption for the life of the mother. Correct me if I'm wrong here, but the baby is "born" either way. It is just whether or not the baby is born alive or dead. If delivering a baby that is alive is going to injure the mother, isn't delivering a baby that has been dead for under a minute going to cause the same injuries?
3) The Terminology. Pro-Choice vs. Pro-Life. Most "pro-lifers" aren't very pro-life when it comes to the death penalty. Most pro-choicers completely ignore that the baby isn't really given a choice in all this, and that 99% of the time, the action that resulted in the pregnacy was a choice in the first place.
---
Rant #2
Why is EVERY Supreme Court nomination about Abortion and only Abortion. Why is the right to abort a baby the #1 concern of so many out there? What does that tell us about the priorities of our society? Is consequence-free casual sex that important that it is THE litmus test on which we base our judicial system?
If you think I am stretching here, think of the demands by certain interest groups that we spend billions of dollars to develop an AIDS vaccine.
HIV is interesting in that it is very difficult to get. You can't get if from casual contact, or if someone sneezes on you, or from a dirty telephone, or from mosquitoes. Anybody who doesn't want to get infected with HIV can do a couple of very simple things and they will NEVER have to worry about it. So why are we spending billions of dollars researching a vaccine? The only reason I can see is so that people can go back to risky behaviour without fear of AIDS. In other words, consequence-free casual sex (without a condom getting in the way)
Posted by VetaMega (Member # 8366) on :
quote:1) My daughter can't be given an asprin at school without a signed consent from a parent, but she can get an abortion without my knowledge.
A child would be less likely to get an abortion if she had to tell her family. If the parents decide for the child, then it wouldn't be the child's choice at all. The act of being pregnent and giving birth is a particularly unpleasent process. Now you can say that that process is result of bad choices the child had made, that she had already made the decision by accepting the risks of her behavior. But what if she had been raped? In our society,we try our best to limit the conquences out there. If a woman is forced to keep her baby against her will, she would be tempted to use other more dangerous means to miscarry it.
quote: Most pro-choicers completely ignore that the baby isn't really given a choice in all this
You ignore the fact that the baby isn't able to give an opinion, that it is incapale of feeling or thought without a brain.
Personal Opinions: I am Christian. I believe a baby's life begins in the womb.I also believe that people should choose to have a baby; that the baby should be the result of good and pure intentions - not a product of guilt, pressure, and unwanteness. What the solution to all this? Abstinence? It's ab an ideal solution but unrealistic. We live in a soceity where people find it hard to control their passions. Invitro-fetilization? Unfortunately there are more people who don't want children than those who do. Not everyone can make the arragements.
The current system is best. It isn't the government's position to force pregnency and childbirth onto those who don't want it. People have to make decision themselves. We can preach to pregnent females and express our opinions, telling them that the right decision is to keep the baby. We can provide provide emotional support to those who need it. But in order to be a society where all the right things are valued, it has to be the mother's choice. Indeed many parents will choose to keep the baby. Those who do not have to live with the consequences. All we can do is inform them. God is a kind and merciful god. He loves children and will not treat those so untainted, yet to even breathe life, badly. You can expect him to make the right decisions. I tell you the truth, it is God's will that everyone has choices. He wants us to make the right ones. But ultimately in order to be the type of people God wants us to be, we have to be the ones to choose to do so. Does it make any sense?
Posted by jeniwren (Member # 2002) on :
quote:The act of being pregnent and giving birth is a particularly unpleasent process.
This, btw, is untrue. But even if it were 100% true for all women, it's important to consider that it is a temporary condition that will resolve itself in short order. The baby being aborted has a permanent condition from which they will never recover.
Posted by VetaMega (Member # 8366) on :
I'm sure there are people who find pain and labor passonite but that wasn't the point. The point was that no one besides them should choose whether or not to go through this process.
No woman is the same after giving birth to a child. On the other hand, some women walk out of an abortion center guilt free. Now whether their particularly honorable people is up to debate.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
quote:You ignore the fact that the baby isn't able to give an opinion, that it is incapale of feeling or thought without a brain.
erm, fetuses have brains long before birth, and experiments have indicated they most certainly are capable of feeling and thought before birth.
(And that sentence was your only nod to addressing what those of us who oppose abortion have been saying.)
Beyond that, I'm intrigued by your prophetic tone at the end of your post, where you come just shy of saying God wants abortion to be legal.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:I tell you the truth, it is God's will that everyone has choices. He wants us to make the right ones. But ultimately in order to be the type of people God wants us to be, we have to be the ones to choose to do so. Does it make any sense?
I somehow doubt you really believe this with respect to other acts that result in the death of human being - which I'm taking your comment "I believe a baby's life begins in the womb" to mean.
If you do, then I want no part of your ideal legal system.
It's also woth noting that criminal laws do not prevent people from making choices to commit crimes. They simply create consequences for those crimes, and make it harder to find people to assist in executing those choices.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
On the topic of stem cell research, I was troubled by an analogy drawn on the Nova episode about it. A guy was saying if he had a living (but terminally ill) child and a freezer full of zygotes and the house was on fire, he would certainly save the child.
The problem with this analogy is that the house is not on fire. The embryos are not in imminent harm's way.
An equally apt analogy would be if you are in a room with your child and your child is intent on unplugging the freezer full of embryos. Still far from an instructive but just as accurate. I'm not saying ill children are out to harm embryos. They are just being used to promote that agenda, kind of like the battle school kids.
Anyway, in generall I fall into the category of
quote:Some say, "Look, we don't know when life starts, so for heaven's sake, let's not kill anything that might be human."
Posted by VetaMega (Member # 8366) on :
Abortion has to be legal. It provides a safe alternative to forceful miscarriage.
Fetuses may have brains but zygotes don't. That was what I was getting at. I didn't say much about her argument because because it is a horrible one. While life may start in the womb, killing a couple cells is not equivilent to murder in any sense of the word. Some passages in Bible say that God knew you while you were still in your mother's womb. However, it also says that he knew you even before then. While the topic of a "you" being in a zygote is questionable, no one can say that an abortion causes birth. Without birth, the baby in the mother's womb is sinless; it was not born and nothing can be used to judge agaisnt it. Thus refutes all Christian claims against abortion.
If you anti-abortionists had their way, all the pregenent 12 year olds would have to stay pregenent or risk life-sentences. I don't know about you, but I don't have the heart in me to imprision those children. If you do, I don't want to live in your kind of society. Indeed what we'd end up in is a Cavinist theocracy; using harsh laws and consequences to create a "perfect" society.
Posted by jeniwren (Member # 2002) on :
quote:If you anti-abortionists had their way, all the pregenent 12 year olds would have to stay pregenent or risk life-sentences.
Hyperbole for lunch, anyone?
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
Seriously.
Posted by Lupus (Member # 6516) on :
quote:Originally posted by Penta: Unless they work from separate accounts and through separate corporate entities (which is done already by Catholic Charities, which is simply a corporate subsidiary of the local diocese/archdiocese), yes.
For one thing, if one entity keeps multiple books, that's accounting fraud. Every financial entity is supposed to have ONE set of books. [/QB]
Actually, other than a little mom and pop shop, few put all their financial records into one listing. Things are divided into different ledgers depending on what type of transaction it is...and generally into more specific subsidiary ledgers depending on WHO the transaction is with. That is not fraud, it is simply organization (and it complies with GAAP). Of course, in a business ALL the books are opened up to independent auditors, otherwise they couldn't sign off on the financial statements.
It would be feasible for a church to open up only the records pertaining to their dealings with the government. Though, I'm not sure what the laws are when it comes to a church's accounting practices (and how much transparency is required).
Posted by Hank (Member # 8916) on :
quote:Originally posted by VetaMega:
Without birth, the baby in the mother's womb is sinless; it was not born and nothing can be used to judge agaisnt it. Thus refutes all Christian claims against abortion.
If you anti-abortionists had their way, all the pregenent 12 year olds would have to stay pregenent or risk life-sentences. I don't know about you, but I don't have the heart in me to imprision those children. If you do, I don't want to live in your kind of society. Indeed what we'd end up in is a Cavinist theocracy; using harsh laws and consequences to create a "perfect" society. [/QB]
Hey, we're not trying to establish a theocracy. You're the one who assumed that our arguments have no merit so long as the unborn child is "sinless"--an argument that also justifies the murder of anyone who has accepted Christ, because, of course, if they die they'll go to heaven, so why shouldn't we kill them?
Furthermore, most anti-abortionsists would never say that "all the 12-year olds would have to stay pregnant or risk life sentences". Most people who support legislating abortion make exceptions for people who have been raped or who would die or risk serious injury if they carried the child to term. What we're suggesting is that when the easy out of abortion is no longer available, people will take the possibility of pregnancy a little more seriously, which could limit the number of pregnant twelve-year-olds. Furthermore, if these girls are really children, then I doubt they would be tried as adults and recieve life sentences. But they and their parents might learn that there are consequences to their actions.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:they and their parents might learn that there are consequences to their actions
What consequences would you require?
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
We'll kill their children!
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
I love:
Outlawing abortion ---> Calvinist theocracy
::whoosh::
(That's the sound of my head spinning!)
Posted by Eva Scrye (Member # 8960) on :
Haha...
It's hard to say if these proposed laws would actually make anyone think any harder than they do now... People do what they want, I'm not sure I agree that laws are as good a deterrent as we might like to think.
Seems to me we need social change, not top-down change. Well, both ideally, I suppose...
Posted by Penta (Member # 8950) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lupus: Actually, other than a little mom and pop shop, few put all their financial records into one listing. Things are divided into different ledgers depending on what type of transaction it is...and generally into more specific subsidiary ledgers depending on WHO the transaction is with. That is not fraud, it is simply organization (and it complies with GAAP). Of course, in a business ALL the books are opened up to independent auditors, otherwise they couldn't sign off on the financial statements.
It would be feasible for a church to open up only the records pertaining to their dealings with the government. Though, I'm not sure what the laws are when it comes to a church's accounting practices (and how much transparency is required).
Well, OK, quick bits:
1. Religious entities, to get the tax exemption, must generally be audited, same as any for-profit corporation, if I remember right.
2. Not opening all the books is an invitation to fraud.
3. Most religious entities are small. It's only the big ones like an entire Diocese in the Catholic Church (where even the small ones aren't small potatoes, and the big ones are multimillion/multibillion $ entities) where we speak of large amounts of money. For most churches, even a *small* government grant would be a great deal of money.
4. Part of what GAO would need to look at, to assure fraud isn't occurring, is the overall financial health of the entity getting the money. If it's weak, you need to watch more carefully. Can't assure yourself of that if some of the books are closed.
5. Frankly, putting yourself in the shoes of Bob Churchgoer, wouldn't you be a lot happier to give if you knew your church wasn't cooking the books? What would the average religious entity have to hide, anyway? How does the government (who is giving you cash, remember) assuring itself you're not committing fraud with its cash impinge on how you practice your faith?
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
I've always been really bothered by how polarized the abortion debate is, but I've never been able to explain why, until recently.
Bill and Hillary Clinton have hit on a slogan recently, that "abortion should be safe, legal, and rare."
I read an article recently that made the comment that this formulation allows for both sides to work toward the same goal, and I thought: "That's it! Both sides recognise the same problem, polarization only makes it harder to find a solution."
See, abortion is going to happen whether it's legal or not. But being legal is essential in keeping it safe for the mother. There's a huge amount of evidence for this, that can't be discounted.
Another side affect of legalizing abortion that I find quite interesting: Prior to Roe v. Wade, unwed mothers got very little sympathy, especially from the religious groups that are so vehemently against abortion. Very often they had no say at all in what decision they made. Keeping the baby was virtually impossible, their only choice was to give the baby up for adoption, or hope that the father would marry them (which was less likely then, due to the double standard).
With the legalization of abortion, the same groups that had previously vilified unwed pregnancy then had to cater to the needs of unwed mothers, in order to prevent them from choosing abortion. The result is that unwed motherhood has been humanized to a degree that nobody back then ever would have expected.
The debate today over abstinence education is similar. As data is gathered, we are seeing that although abstinence is a critical part of the solution, it can't be relied on as the only solution. This is one thing that I can't reconcile with the Catholic church, in particular. They can't have it both ways: If you are against abortion, you have to make birth control and the knowledge of how to use it easily available to everyone. End of story. Doesn't matter whether abortion is legal or not, opposition to birth control undermines their whole argument.
So I'd say that the goals that both sides should address could be summed up as follows:
Teach responsible behavior. (That's a huge category. I leave it vague on purpose)
Offer options, and provide support for those options. (same here)
If all else fails and a woman is considering abortion, encourage her to make her own decision, encourage her to make the decision as early as possible, encourage her to stick by her decision and don't push guilt on her regardless of her final choice.
Posted by A Rat Named Dog (Member # 699) on :
quote:"Euthenasia has to be legal, because it's the only safe alternative to smothering handicapped children to death".
Reminds me of the Law & Order in which McCoy deliberately sabotaged his own case to let off a woman who withheld medication from her handicapped son until he fell into a coma, then thinking he was dead, burned the apartment down around him, risking the lives of all the neighbors (not to mention killing her son).
He pitied her because her son was an incredibly difficult case. He was seriously mentally disturbed, and could get violent (though mostly against himself). She had tried to put him into an institution, but he was miserable there, and she took him back.
And so she gets to KILL him?
Usually, I like the conclusions they come to on Law & Order, but that one just floored me. Especially after reading essays by our own sndrake.
Posted by Monroe by Warhol (Member # 8999) on :
This topic really intrigues me. As someone from a quite liberal family, it's strange to see so many different ideas and beliefs about abortion.
However, once people get down to the nitty gritty, it is a belief situation. If anyon'es goal in this forum is to change everyone's minds about abortions and their beliefs about what constitues a life and what constitutes killing something, I certainly want no part in it. A belief is something you believe in; you can't truely change your heart.
I'm sorry if I got on your nerves.
Posted by BlueBambue (Member # 8656) on :
it is not possible to stop people having abortions. The poor people will have unsafe alley abortions and the rich will fly to a country and have a safer one. This also creates inequality between the rich and poor, going against equal protection for all.
and it is my opinion that a baby is considered alive when it could survive outside of the womb.
Posted by Monroe by Warhol (Member # 8999) on :
I AGREE WITH BLUEBAMBUE
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:it is not possible to stop people having abortions. The poor people will have unsafe alley abortions and the rich will fly to a country and have a safer one. This also creates inequality between the rich and poor, going against equal protection for all.
It's not possible to stop people from doing anything which they are physically possible. There are 15,000 or so murders in the U.S. each year. There are many, many more assaults than that. The rich have always had an easier time getting away with criminal offense. Neither prong of your argument relies on a principle that is recognized in any other criminalization context.
quote:Usually, I like the conclusions they come to on Law & Order, but that one just floored me. Especially after reading essays by our own sndrake.
Stephen has a way of helping one see these situations more clearly, doesn't he?
Posted by JoeH (Member # 5958) on :
I know this is way late in the game, but doesn't
quote:A child does not develop really into a person until it is personified from birth and experiance
justify killing babies because they're not people?
Posted by Monroe by Warhol (Member # 8999) on :
some people believe a fetus's life begins at fertilization.
so yeah.
but i still agree with blubambue.
Posted by Eva Scrye (Member # 8960) on :
Quite the story. How did the father respond to something like *that*???
Posted by tmservo (Member # 8552) on :
Damn near decked the doctor. Posted by Eva Scrye (Member # 8960) on :
I know *I* certainly would... Well, except for the whole need of him to deliver the baby.
Posted by Penta (Member # 8950) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlueBambue: and it is my opinion that a baby is considered alive when it could survive outside of the womb.
This preemie would like to note that that marker gets pushed back on a regular basis.
In 1983, I was born 94 days preemie (about 13-14 weeks preemie, if I do my math right). I was very touch-and-go, and nearly died a few times.
24 weeks was considered the point at which a fetus was viable outside the womb.
Now?
A kid born as early as I was is still touch-and-go, but their chances of survival (albeit with disabilities, sometimes pretty severe) are very good, easily over 80-90% if they don't have a brain bleed.
The point at which a fetus is generally deemed viable is about...20-22 weeks, now.
It's a good marker to use in the abortion debate, I think, but it is one that progress pushes back farther and farther. Be aware of that.
Posted by VetaMega (Member # 8366) on :
quote:Originally posted by tmservo:
quote:it is not possible to stop people having abortions. The poor people will have unsafe alley abortions and the rich will fly to a country and have a safer one. This also creates inequality between the rich and poor, going against equal protection for all.
Then again, as mentioned above, it's not possible to "stop" murder (we convict a good number of them) aggravated assault, rapists, etc. Just because you can't stop something doesn't mean that we in turn, give a carte-blanche pass of condoning it.
People love using analogies don't they? Only this one doesn't make sense. Alley abortions are dangerous to a mother's health. If you legalize abortion, mothers will have less risk of personal injury or death. Where-as if abortion is illegal, many mothers will try it anyway; the baby will still die and the mother's life may also be threatened. Definately NOT the same as murder or rape or torture.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:People love using analogies don't they? Only this one doesn't make sense. Alley abortions are dangerous to a mother's health. If you legalize abortion, mothers will have less risk of personal injury or death. Where-as if abortion is illegal, many mothers will try it anyway; the baby will still die and the mother's life may also be threatened. Definately NOT the same as murder or rape or torture.
People love refuting analogies, don't they? Only this refutation doesn't make sense. All abortions are fatal to the child. If you ban abortion, children will have less risk of death. Where-as if abortion is legal, many more mothers will obtain abortions; more babies will die.
Posted by Omega M. (Member # 7924) on :
If abortion is banned, some people will do it anyway, but probably not as many as would do it if it were legal. The important thing is that we as a society will be sending the message that we don't want people even to think about killing others just for convenience and will have headed off the killing of more-developed people that we might later be ashamed of killing.
Now if you are sure that allowing the killing of babies before birth has only an infinitesimal chance of encouraging the killing of people just a little older, and just a little older, etc., then feel free to advocate abortion up until whatever time you think. But I personally think that if I completely accepted the idea that abortion before some point was okay, I'd have a very hard time fighting the urge to allow abortion just a little later, so I'm for banning all abortion. If enough other people are confident that they can defend the abortion limit they choose, I'll be outnumbered. I just hope the people who want abortion really are confident about this.
Posted by WntrMute (Member # 7556) on :
quote:Originally posted by Omega M.: If abortion is banned, some people will do it anyway, but probably not as many as would do it if it were legal. The important thing is that we as a society will be sending the message that we don't want people even to think about killing others just for convenience and will have headed off the killing of more-developed people that we might later be ashamed of killing.
Now if you are sure that allowing the killing of babies before birth has only an infinitesimal chance of encouraging the killing of people just a little older, and just a little older, etc., then feel free to advocate abortion up until whatever time you think. But I personally think that if I completely accepted the idea that abortion before some point was okay, I'd have a very hard time fighting the urge to allow abortion just a little later, so I'm for banning all abortion. If enough other people are confident that they can defend the abortion limit they choose, I'll be outnumbered. I just hope the people who want abortion really are confident about this.
This is a false argument, in my mind. I have never had an issue with first trimester abortion. I have always had an issue with third trimester abortion. Third trimester abortions are abominable. I'm not even sure if I buy the 'health of the mother' argument for third trimester abortion, since if it is safe enough for an abortion (which is an invasive surgical procedure at that point) then how would it not be safe enough for a caesarian?
Posted by Omega M. (Member # 7924) on :
Can you say what you think makes third trimester abortions abominable but first trimester ones okay?
Posted by jeniwren (Member # 2002) on :
Typically it's because most people recognize that the figure inside is recognizable as a baby in the 3rd trimester, and not so much in the 1st.
One of the most moving museum shows I've ever seen was one of actual preserved fetuses at progressively older gestation, from just a week after conception to near term.
Posted by WntrMute (Member # 7556) on :
quote:Originally posted by Omega M.: Can you say what you think makes third trimester abortions abominable but first trimester ones okay?
One involves a fully developed human, the other involves a partially developed something that isn't quite human.
What makes an embryo substantively different from a tumor?
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
quote:Originally posted by tmservo: We've had children survive at 5 months. And we're up to an 80% success rate at 28 weeks (7 months).
20 weeks? We have?
quote:Originally posted by Penta: The point at which a fetus is generally deemed viable is about...20-22 weeks, now.
My understanding is that 22 weeks (or 154 days) was still the minimum for viability, at least so far. (Not to nitpick, just curious for other reasons.)
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
(Just for clarity, I am using as the most up-to-date resource the Executive Summary of the Workshop on the Border of Viability, set up through the US National Institute of Child Health and Human Development in March 2004.
Of course, determining the exact date of gestation is always a tricky thing, and only with facillitated conception (e.g., IVF) do we really ever know exactly when the conception occurred. And of course, the lower age in the range of viability has been growing increasingly smaller. However, I just wanted to keep the current status accurate in my own mind as well as for purposes of a well-informed discussion here.
I'm always curious as to where the lower numbers (that is, lower than I am aware of) come from. Sometimes it seems that it gets cited somewhere as having appeared somewhere else, and then it spreads quickly as a reference. I usually can't find the entry point for the information, though.)
Posted by JennaDean (Member # 8816) on :
quote:
quote: Originally posted by tmservo: We've had children survive at 5 months. And we're up to an 80% success rate at 28 weeks (7 months).
20 weeks? We have?
Speaking of nitpicking ... 5 months is not 20 weeks. 5 months is about 22 weeks. More than halfway.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
JennaDean, I am indeed sorry if this came across as nitpicking to you. I was not trying to advance any particular agenda.
I was assuming that tmservo was equating 1 month to 4 weeks, since he went on to equate 7 months with 28 weeks, as you quoted as well. But then again, that's why I used a question mark -- I wasn't sure what he meant. And then with Penta's reiteration of 20 weeks, I really wasn't sure what was being claimed.
What did you think he was trying to say? [Honest question!]
More importantly, do you have a citation for survival of an infant of 22 weeks' gestation? [To be perfectly clear, I mean 154 days.] I'm honestly trying to find one, and I can't. I used the 22 week mark in my first post above because I know resuscitation is at least attempted at tertiary care centers for that gestational age, but even so, I can't find data to support survival in such cases. 23 weeks is the lowest I've found for longterm survivability outside the womb.
Again, I apologize if my tone is or was distressing. Perhaps I'm reading more into your post than I should, but if my brusqueness or style was annoying to you, I'd be happy to edit and modify it to be better-worded. Never a problem.
--------------------------------------------
Edited yet again to add: I have no idea if I'm shoving my foot still further down my throat with this, but some further clarification might help. I'm pretty firmly convinced, myself, that we will be seeing yet still earlier survival ages in the near future. I just want to know it when it does happen, as I am sometimes in a position (because of my work) to field questions about the specifics of such cases. I don't want to give out inaccurate information, so I'm always sort of fact-checking on these particular claims when I come across them.
Again, I agree that these ages will likely get younger and younger. In fact, there was a goat (IIRC) gestated to term completely via an artificial womb in Japan. I think there were some problems at delivery, though, and as far as I know, this event has yet to be replicated.
However, if anyone has new and breaking info on advances regarding artificial wombs, I'd love citations on that, as well.
[ January 10, 2006, 03:35 PM: Message edited by: ClaudiaTherese ]
Posted by jeniwren (Member # 2002) on :
quote:What makes an embryo substantively different from a tumor?
A tumor will never be anything more than a tumor. It will never, not even with the best medical help available, become independent and self-sustaining. A human embryo, nurtured with just basic care, has a better than excellent chance of being fully independent, self sustaining, and socially contributing.
Posted by JennaDean (Member # 8816) on :
"JennaDean, I am indeed sorry if this came across as nitpicking to you...."
Sorry. I was just acknowledging that I was nit-picking myself. I get confused when some people count pregnancy as 40 weeks, some as 9 months, some as 10 4-week months (that's really confusing!). So I was just reiterating that 20 weeks is halfway, or 4 1/2 months, and 22 weeks is 5 months. Not that I really added anything to the discussion.
I have heard that there has been survival at 22 weeks, in fact I have heard that's the youngest we've had an infant survive, but it was in my childbirth prep class. I haven't done the research myself.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
quote:Originally posted by JennaDean: Sorry. I was just acknowledging that I was nit-picking myself.
Ah, I get you.
quote:I get confused when some people count pregnancy as 40 weeks, some as 9 months, some as 10 4-week months (that's really confusing!).
Like this stuff isn't confusing enough, eh? *smile
quote:I have heard that there has been survival at 22 weeks, in fact I have heard that's the youngest we've had an infant survive, but it was in my childbirth prep class. I haven't done the research myself.
It's bound to happen (or have happened already). Best wishes for the infant and family, of course, as well as for those that follow.
Such tiny, tiny little babies.
Posted by Omega M. (Member # 7924) on :
quote:Originally posted by jeniwren:
Typically it's because most people recognize that the figure inside is recognizable as a baby in the 3rd trimester, and not so much in the 1st.
Hmm.... I'll have to think about it more, but that might actually work. At that point (around 4 months?) it's pretty much impossible to say that the fetus isn't alive. That line won't lead to the killing of "inconvenient" retarded or old people because even the sickest of them definitely looks like a human. And if someone wants older unborn babies to be aborted, saying, "But they won't suffer!", you can always say, "Tough. We're physical creatures as well as mental ones, and killing something that looks that much like us can't help but inure us to greater crimes against humanity."
But I wouldn't rule out voting for someone who wanted to ban abortion (and stem-cell research) entirely, since I do think my reasons above are "good" reasons to do so.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
quote:Originally posted by Omega M.: That line won't lead to the killing of "inconvenient" retarded or old people because even the sickest of them definitely looks like a human.
I'm not sure that "looking human" is a standard that would cover everyone you would want it to cover. Not to be difficult here, but there are some congenital anomalies which are associated with unique phenotypes.
I think the "looking human" road might lead us further than we might want to go.
Posted by jeniwren (Member # 2002) on :
quote:At that point (around 4 months?) it's pretty much impossible to say that the fetus isn't alive.
It's pretty much impossible to say it's not alive once the cells start dividing.
Posted by WntrMute (Member # 7556) on :
quote:Originally posted by jeniwren:
quote:What makes an embryo substantively different from a tumor?
A tumor will never be anything more than a tumor. It will never, not even with the best medical help available, become independent and self-sustaining. A human embryo, nurtured with just basic care, has a better than excellent chance of being fully independent, self sustaining, and socially contributing.
That's something in only potential at any given moment, not necessarily something that is true for any given moment. Should we lock people up for crimes they have the potential to commit (ala Minority Report)? Anyways, what you are saying is that an embryo is something that could be a human, given enough time, right? Well, isn't any egg or sperm also a potential human, as well? All one would need is its complement. The potential is there. Potentially, I am a multi-billionaire. All I need is a couple billion dollars. Other than that, the potential is there. Potential, while sometimes meaningful, is not the same as something of the moment. In most cases what is of the moment is more significant.
This is an issue that is almost always tied in with religion, I think, because there is no good scientific answer. It's a moral issue, for which science is singularly ill-equipped to handle, after all.
From my personal theological/philosophical point of view, what distinguishes us from animals is the functioning of our brain. Not just the existence of any old brain, but a brain that reacts and functions in a uniquely human way. In a more philosophical mode, I would go so far as to say that the brain is where a soul is able to inferface with the material world. No brain = no soul = no humanity. When has the brain's structure finally been set? At the very end of the first trimester. When does the chance of miscarriage drop most substantially? (Assuming implatation took place, which is the single largest hurdle an embryo has to pass -- anywhere between 50-75% of fertilized embryoes don't.) At the very end of the first trimester. When are the other organs all in place, and the fetus obviously different from any other species? At the very end of the first trimester. But these things aren't true before that point.
None of this is conclusive nor is it meant to be convincing. It is my evaluation, and no more.
Posted by WntrMute (Member # 7556) on :
quote:Originally posted by jeniwren:
quote:At that point (around 4 months?) it's pretty much impossible to say that the fetus isn't alive.
It's pretty much impossible to say it's not alive once the cells start dividing.
If 'life' is the standard, then stop eating. All of the things you eat were once alive but they had to be killed to feed you. The point isn't 'life' or not. The point is 'human life' or not.
Posted by VetaMega (Member # 8366) on :
quote:That's a decision based on the moral perspective of the person seeing the situation. There are those who believe that abortion=murder; therefore, legality does not equate to morality for them.
In the end, the argument for abortion of "people will do it anyway" is a very weak argument. Come at it with a more scientific viewpoint. Give logical reasoning for the societal benefits of abortion, etc. While people may disagree, you can build the case. And that is better reasoning then "people would do it anyway" [/QB]
Let's put it this way:
Legal Abortion - Zygote dies; less risk of health problems for the mother.
Street abortion/forced miscarrage - Zygote dies; serious risk of health problems for the mother.
Why do we allow children to get Birth Control pills without parental consent? Because we know most of them are going to do it anyway. We can't stop them, so it's better if they do it safely. Many people strongly believe in abortion. They won't sit quietly for ten months with an unwanted child in their abdomen. It has serious implications to their career, health, and social life. They believe abortion is a civil liberty and will fight to exercise that liberty. Prohabilation is a perfect example of this. During Prohabilation, the selling of liquor became illegal. However, that did not stop people from drinking alcohol. Wine and rum were smuggled and sold on the black market. Bars became even more popular, more people were drunk than ever. Indeed, the law was so useless on a large scale that all it did was create antigovernment sentiment and increase smuggling. I believe that people will fight even more strongly for their right of abortion than for their right to drink alcohol.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
quote: I believe that people will fight even more strongly for their right of abortion than for their right to drink alcohol.
Um...yeah.
Do people really have a right to drink alcohol? Or is it just a system maintained by corrupt officials so that the populace can be fleeced like sheep by multinational corporations?
How many people really strongly believe in abortion? Do they get pregnant just so they can have one? I believe a lot of people see it as a necessary evil. That's different from "believing in" IMHO.
P.S. I've never heard of an abortion taking out a zygote.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Let's put it this way: Legal Abortion - Zygote dies; less risk of health problems for the mother. Street abortion/forced miscarrage - Zygote dies; serious risk of health problems for the mother.
CT, could you confirm or correct my understanding here: no or almost no abortions are performed when the unborn child can accurately be called a "zygote," right? I thought zygote was only appropriate upt to 5 days or so.
Regardless, VetaMega, your dichotomy can more accurately be presented as follows:
Legal Abortion - Aprox. 1 million fetuses die each year in the U.S.; less risk of health problems for the mother. Street abortion/forced miscarrage - Fewer than 100 thousand fetuses die; more risk of health problems for the mother.
quote:They believe abortion is a civil liberty and will fight to exercise that liberty.
And many others believe it to be the killing of an innocent human being and will fight to prevent such killing.
Posted by VetaMega (Member # 8366) on :
Which is good but those numbers would change once abortion is illegalised. People won't be able to have legal abortions.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
VM, I don't understand your post. My two cases were if elective abortion is legal (which we have now) and if elective abortion is illegal.
Of course the numbers would change. That's the point.
Elective abortion illegal = fewer abortions. I vastly overstated the expected number of abortions if elective abortion is banned.
Posted by WntrMute (Member # 7556) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: Elective abortion illegal = fewer abortions. I vastly overstated the expected number of abortions if elective abortion is banned.
And who is expecting this number? Your sources for these numbers would be.... I'm guessing a colonic extraction, but feel free to correct me if I'm off on that.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
quote: This is an issue that is almost always tied in with religion, I think, because there is no good scientific answer. It's a moral issue, for which science is singularly ill-equipped to handle, after all.
I don't agree that this is a primarily religious issue at all. I am not particularly religious, and yet I oppose abortion, and on ground I don't consider remotely religious. I also think the apparent dichotomy you present between religion and science is a false one in the best of times, but is absolutely invalid here. Those aren't the only bases (religion or "science"). How about ethics? You do believe there are ethics outside of religion, don't you?
-o-
quote: If 'life' is the standard, then stop eating. All of the things you eat were once alive but they had to be killed to feed you. The point isn't 'life' or not. The point is 'human life' or not.
jeniwren did not say that life was the standard. She replied to a particular flawed statement--the assertion that before four months, one could argue that the fetus was not alive.
-o-
quote: Why do we allow children to get Birth Control pills without parental consent?
Another truly screwed up bit of law. This is completely outrageous, and I hope some day it gets fixed. But ending abortion is a much higher priority for me.
Posted by WntrMute (Member # 7556) on :
quote:Originally posted by Icarus:
quote: This is an issue that is almost always tied in with religion, I think, because there is no good scientific answer. It's a moral issue, for which science is singularly ill-equipped to handle, after all.
I don't agree that this is a primarily religious issue at all. I am not particularly religious, and yet I oppose abortion, and on ground I don't consider remotely religious. I also think the apparent dichotomy you present between religion and science is a false one in the best of times, but is absolutely invalid here. Those aren't the only bases (religion or "science"). How about ethics? You do believe there are ethics outside of religion, don't you?
Is it possible to establish an ethical system outside of a religious framework? Absolutely. Is there any kind of metric to measure those various religious or secular frameworks? Not at all.
Science is about HOW THINGS HAPPEN. That's it. More strictly speaking, the scientific method is a way of explaining natural phenomena using experimentation to validate or disprove hypotheses about the function of those processes. What experiment can measure 'good?' What can you use to measure 'happiness' or 'despair?' What equation can define proper behavior in any given situation?
Any ethical system, even secular one, is not going to be based on measurements, mathematics, physics, or chemistry. It is instead going to be fundamentally grounded in abstract and inherently unmeasurable values that stand wholely outside of any scientific framework.
Posted by WntrMute (Member # 7556) on :
quote:Originally posted by Icarus:
quote: Why do we allow children to get Birth Control pills without parental consent?
Another truly screwed up bit of law. This is completely outrageous, and I hope some day it gets fixed. But ending abortion is a much higher priority for me.
I agree that it is wrong for children to get medical prescriptions without their parents' knowledge, much less approval. However, I think this is a state dependant law.
I am intrigued, however, to hear about a secular basis against all forms of abortion. What about ectopic pregnancies? What about the 'morning after' contraceptives?
edit to add, this is in the wrong forum, is it not?
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
It is in the wrong forum, but *shrug* here it is.
-o-
I don't disagree with anything in your first post, but I don't see where you're driving with it. I'm not the one trying to make a "scientific" argument against abortion. I'm saying that one can come to the ethical conclusion that abortion is wrong without need of a commandment from God, and without being told by the heirarchy of a religion. So I'm not sure what the point of your first post on this page really is.
-o-
My basis for my opinion on abortion is presented elsewhere in this thread, and it's late at night, so forgive me for not rewriting it. In principle, I oppose all forms of abortion. What form of abortion and what form of pregnancy is not relevant to me, because that's not the side of the coin I'm analyzing.
In practicality, however, I recognize the need for compromise in order to better the current situation. So the earlier someone wants to allow abortions, the more amenable I am to it. And if people are willing to limit it to special cases, then I am willing to allow it in those special cases. (Insofar as I have a say, of course.)
My understanding of the morning after pill is that it prevents a fertilized egg from implanting in the uterus? I could certainly compromise on my stance in favor of leaving something like this legal, if we could, in return, outlaw abortions of second and third trimester fetuses, at the very least. Certainly such a pill seems more morally gray than a late second trimester abortion.
I think those of us who oppose abortion will need to be willing to compromise if we want to have our way here--unless, of course, the Supreme Court obviates the need.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:And who is expecting this number? Your sources for these numbers would be.... I'm guessing a colonic extraction, but feel free to correct me if I'm off on that.
OK, so you're clearly not interested in having a discussion. There's lots of literature out there about numbers of abortions before legalization. Feel free to read it for yourself.
I also note you've given not one source supporting your contention that making abortions illegal will significantly increase the percentage of women undergoing abortions who face complications.
So the next time you accuse me of pulling something ouot of my ass, take a couple of seconds to make sure you haven't done the same.
Or simply grow up, ask for a source, and skip the insult.
Posted by Omega M. (Member # 7924) on :
Yes, I know the "looks human" line has its own problems because, after all, at one point some people thought certain minorities didn't look human. (This is one reason why I wouldn't be opposed to a total ban on abortion.) But I think in our present society nearly everybody agrees for one reason or another that it's bad to go around killing people who physically look human, so it's unlikely there'd be a lot of pressure to pass less restrictive abortion laws. Also, if we allowed abortion up to around, say, 4 months, the rabid pro-abortion people would have to say a lot more clearly that they don't care that what they're advocating suspiciously like killing a person.
Posted by WntrMute (Member # 7556) on :
quote:Originally posted by Icarus: It is in the wrong forum, but *shrug* here it is.
...I'm saying that one can come to the ethical conclusion that abortion is wrong without need of a commandment from God, and without being told by the heirarchy of a religion. So I'm not sure what the point of your first post on this page really is. ... My basis for my opinion on abortion is presented elsewhere in this thread, and it's late at night, so forgive me for not rewriting it. ... I could certainly compromise on my stance in favor of leaving something like this legal, if we could, in return, outlaw abortions of second and third trimester fetuses, at the very least. Certainly such a pill seems more morally gray than a late second trimester abortion.
I think those of us who oppose abortion will need to be willing to compromise if we want to have our way here--unless, of course, the Supreme Court obviates the need.
We're in less disagreement than you may think. I personally find abortion of convenience after the first trimester to be wrong, but that is a personal and subjective realization. Which is my point. Ethical questions lie outside of science or math. That is not to say that there cannot be a rationally or logically derived ethical code, as opposed to revealed or religious codes: there are different historical models that one can find. However, even these are ultimately based on subjective and not objective, empirically measurable parameters.
I also agree that compromise is possible.
And it was late and I was hoping for a recap instead of having to look for your position, so instead of forgiving you your tiredness, I'll apologise for my laziness. Mea culpa.
quote:Originally posted by DagoneeI also note you've given not one source supporting your contention that making abortions illegal will significantly increase the percentage of women undergoing abortions who face complications.
So the next time you accuse me of pulling something ouot of my ass, take a couple of seconds to make sure you haven't done the same.
First off, I've never made that contention, especailly not in this thread. The only points I have made are a) I don't think there are an justifiable reasons for a third trimester abortion since any medical situation that jeopardizes the health of the mother is going to make any proceedure, either a caesarian or an abortion, equally inherently risky; b) I find the concept of an abortion of convenience in the third trimester abhorrent; c) I don't have any personal moral qualms against abortions of convenience only in the first trimester; and d) the subjective nature of all moral and ethical systems.
I'm not pretending that any of my arguments are morally certain, especially in light of my assertion (which is in itself fundamentally a colonic extraction) that moral and ethical certainty is impossible. From a purely non-revelatory and secular perspective, admittedly.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Ah, I got you mixed up with the person I was responding to. I wonder, then, why you felt the need to call me on something when the person I was responding to had provided no proof, either.
And, of course, why the hell you had to be so rude about it.
Posted by WntrMute (Member # 7556) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: Ah, I got you mixed up with the person I was responding to. I wonder, then, why you felt the need to call me on something when the person I was responding to had provided no proof, either.
And, of course, why the hell you had to be so rude about it.
Because the use of unsubstatiated numbers sometimes gives an argument an appearance of objectivity that it does not actually possess.
So I asked for a source. I would question how the number of unsanctioned, unrecorded, and unregulated procedures was generated, if one of those number is supposed to be based on the number of back-alley abortions that took place each year before abortion was legal. The figure of 1,000,000 abortions per year was true in the early 90's, per CDC reporting, but is not true now. Unless you round up to the nearest million. The number of abortions has been slightly under 860,000 since 2000, though the reporting is several years behind and not available since 2002.
Who's colon from which the numbers you used were pulled is irrelevant, my point was that they were being presented as factual when one was (at best) hypothetically reconstructed, and the other was apparently at least 7 years out of date.
edit to add: DRAT and double DRAT the CDC. Their numbers don't include California. How useless and stupid. So, ok, I'll grant 1,000,000 as a reasonable approximation.
Posted by jeniwren (Member # 2002) on :
quote:Originally posted by WntrMute:
quote:Originally posted by jeniwren:
quote:At that point (around 4 months?) it's pretty much impossible to say that the fetus isn't alive.
It's pretty much impossible to say it's not alive once the cells start dividing.
If 'life' is the standard, then stop eating. All of the things you eat were once alive but they had to be killed to feed you. The point isn't 'life' or not. The point is 'human life' or not.
If those dividing cells are not human life, what are they? Goat life? Celery life?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Who's colon from which the numbers you used were pulled is irrelevant
Apparently you are unable to be civil or polite.
It is abundantly clear that any statement about the future number of events if a law is changed is an opinion.
In case anyone else didn't figure that out, I'll state it explicitly: my post on the previous page that references the number of abortions that would occur annually if abortion were made illegal is my own rough estimate.
When you grow out of you anal-centric phase let me know.
Posted by WntrMute (Member # 7556) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: When you grow out of you anal-centric phase let me know.
You may get the point when you grow up, yourself, at which time you wouldn't need to hear from me in any case.
JenniWren: So each individual cell in your body is a separate human life?
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
quote:JenniWren: So each individual cell in your body is a separate human life?
Okay, so the question then is not when it becomes human life, but when it becomes a distinct entity. Do you see that you are taking somebody's reply to one question and pointing out that it's an inadequate reply to a totally different question? I don't think you are doing it on purpose, but I wanted to point out to you that you are doing this.
Posted by WntrMute (Member # 7556) on :
quote:Originally posted by Icarus: Okay, so the question then is not when it becomes human life, but when it becomes a distinct entity. Do you see that you are taking somebody's reply to one question and pointing out that it's an inadequate reply to a totally different question? I don't think you are doing it on purpose, but I wanted to point out to you that you are doing this.
Fair enough, and I'll accept that phrasing of the fundamental question.
Posted by jeniwren (Member # 2002) on :
Mute, all the cells in my body make up a human life that is me. I don't cry about the loss of my dead skin cells, because while they were a part of me (literally by the dna, they were me until they died) I am still alive without them.
The cells of the body of a growing human embryo make up a human life that is seperate genetically from its mother. Thus it cannot be confused with her body or her (the person in the body). It's a seperate life, currently enjoying the hospitality of someone who intentionally, or unintentionally, invited it to be there. It strikes me as deliberately obtuse to think abortion is anything less than killing.
Posted by WntrMute (Member # 7556) on :
What is it, though, that makes an entity an entity. Is an arm an entity, or a leg? Even if they were genetically human?
[ January 11, 2006, 04:55 PM: Message edited by: WntrMute ]
Posted by jeniwren (Member # 2002) on :
Those are interesting questions, but not particularly relevant. The question is whether or not it is right to allow women to abort their pregnancies. Or to word it without politically correct sanitation: kill the tiny human lives inside them.
As I said before regarding tumors, an arm cannot function independent of the body to which it genetically belongs. Chop it off, it dies. If you will, it's a tool of the body. If it becomes gangrenous, it may become a parasite. But at no point did it ever have the potential to become a seperate entity capable of independent life.
Human embryos are genetically unique, and given time and basic care, will become seperate and independent of their hosts. You don't gestate your arm or leg so that it can one day fall off and run free.
I'm kind of wondering at what point you're going to admit that what you're really pushing at is that you don't believe that the human life inside a pregnant woman doesn't have a soul and is therefore not worth saving unless she wants it. Or that it doesn't matter if it has a soul or not, it's still her rights over the rights of the not-yet-born. In other words, some are more equal than others. THESE are belief, not scientific fact. Your continued effort to point out that anti-abortionists base their activism on faith is in fact only true of pro-choicers. Fearlessly honest pro-choicers acknowledge this.
Posted by WntrMute (Member # 7556) on :
quote:Originally posted by jeniwren: Those are interesting questions, but not particularly relevant. The question is whether or not it is right to allow women to abort their pregnancies. Or to word it without politically correct sanitation: kill the tiny human lives inside them.
As I said before regarding tumors, an arm cannot function independent of the body to which it genetically belongs. Chop it off, it dies. If you will, it's a tool of the body. If it becomes gangrenous, it may become a parasite. But at no point did it ever have the potential to become a seperate entity capable of independent life.
Human embryos are genetically unique, and given time and basic care, will become seperate and independent of their hosts. You don't gestate your arm or leg so that it can one day fall off and run free.
I'm kind of wondering at what point you're going to admit that what you're really pushing at is that you don't believe that the human life inside a pregnant woman doesn't have a soul and is therefore not worth saving unless she wants it. Or that it doesn't matter if it has a soul or not, it's still her rights over the rights of the not-yet-born. In other words, some are more equal than others. THESE are belief, not scientific fact. Your continued effort to point out that anti-abortionists base their activism on faith is in fact only true of pro-choicers. Fearlessly honest pro-choicers acknowledge this.
Actually, no. The root of the question is at what point is something human to start with. You want to say "kill the tiny human lives inside them." My point is at what point is this a 'tiny human life' in the first place? This is essential. There is, of course, the other end of the argument: at what point has a human life ended? However, since I missed the Schiavo case on these boards, that is tangential (though still somewhat relevant) to this argument.
My arm has the exact same genetic information as any other part of me, but if you seperate it from the rest of my body it's just so much dying flesh. It isn't me, it isn't even that essential in defining who I am. Even if cloning technology were to be developed to grow a clone from my severed arm, that new body would still not be me, but it would be a different person altogether -- the identical twin I hadn't been born with. Frankly, this is true of nearly every part of my body. As technology continues to improve, there is only one part of my body that, if it were removed or destroyed, that would necessarily entail my destruction and that is my brain. That is the only sine qua non for which there can be no technological substitute or cure. You are right, the arm is just a tool -- though not of the body, which is itself just a set of tools, but of the brain. The brain IS the person. The brain is the tool-user. You cannot have a person without a brain. And not just any old brain will do, either. Earthworms and ants have brains, but they are amazingly dull dinner companions.
Now, you may have some opinions regarding the quality, functioning, and/or existance of my brain; but these are obviously metaphorical. Feel free to share, though, because that can sometimes be amusing.
As for the rest of your argument I have already pointed out above that all moral and ethical choices are ultimately not based on science -- until a unit of 'good' can be measured, they can't be. So I would say that all moral frameworks are, in the respect that they are all subjective, essentially faith based*. I am also not a dogmatic 'pro-choicer,' given my antipathy to abortion after the first trimester, so I don't know what relevance the pro-choice digression has. Choice isn't an essential part of any argument that I've made at all, and I don't think I have even used the word before this post, at least not as a main aspect of any of my posts.
*Note: In this specific context by 'faith' I am refering to any kind of philophical framework regardless of its religious, agnostic, or anti-religious context. This is a broader use than is normally associated with the word, which typically is restricted to some kind of revealed philosophy.
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee:
quote:People love using analogies don't they? Only this one doesn't make sense. Alley abortions are dangerous to a mother's health. If you legalize abortion, mothers will have less risk of personal injury or death. Where-as if abortion is illegal, many mothers will try it anyway; the baby will still die and the mother's life may also be threatened. Definately NOT the same as murder or rape or torture.
People love refuting analogies, don't they? Only this refutation doesn't make sense. All abortions are fatal to the child. If you ban abortion, children will have less risk of death. Where-as if abortion is legal, many more mothers will obtain abortions; more babies will die.
And the analogy of abortion to murder only makes sense if you start out in the position of believing that abortion is wrong, and possibly equitable with murder. Since no one seems to be arguing for the legalization of murder.
But hey, if abortion is illegal, it allows you to say that girl who died of septic shock in some back alley deserved it, because she was a law-breaking would-be murderess slut anyway. Makes sure those other sluts keep their buns properly in the oven, eh?
Yes, I know that's not the point anyone is claiming. But let's not pretend that this is a legal argument, because the law currently stands the other way, which is that abortion is not murder. And if that law changes, it's far more likely to be from a perceived moral precedent thand a perceived legal one.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
quote:As for the rest of your argument I have already pointed out above that all moral and ethical choices are ultimately not based on science -- until a unit of 'good' can be measured, they can't be. So I would say that all moral frameworks are, in the respect that they are all subjective, essentially faith based*.
If something is not based on science it is subjective?
What about deduction? Logic?
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
quote:Originally posted by Icarus:
quote:As for the rest of your argument I have already pointed out above that all moral and ethical choices are ultimately not based on science -- until a unit of 'good' can be measured, they can't be. So I would say that all moral frameworks are, in the respect that they are all subjective, essentially faith based*.
If something is not based on science it is subjective?
What about deduction? Logic?
I actually had some ideas about moral systems that may be "inherent", rather than faith _or_ deductively based, off of various dangling threads from discussions with friends, old philosophy courses, and so on. Which I'd be happy to discuss elsewhere. Not here.
Posted by A Rat Named Dog (Member # 699) on :
quote:And the analogy of abortion to murder only makes sense if you start out in the position of believing that abortion is wrong, and possibly equitable with murder.
Well, yes, analogizing abortion to murder does only work if you think abortion is similar to murder. That's such a truism, I'm not sure why you said it
However, the fact that you disagree with that idea doesn't mean that your opponents are inventing their opinions out of whole cloth — ie, "starting from that position". Most of them ARRIVED at that position through some sort of thinking-type process. And they expect that with sufficient explanation and persuasion, they may be able to show other people the process they went through, and bring them around to agree with them.
A similar tactic might work for you if you wanted to try it
quote:But hey, if abortion is illegal, it allows you to say that girl who died of septic shock in some back alley deserved it, because she was a law-breaking would-be murderess slut anyway. Makes sure those other sluts keep their buns properly in the oven, eh?
Yes, I know that's not the point anyone is claiming.
Doesn't stop you from trying to tar your opponents with it anyway, apparently. Seriously, if that's what you think people are saying, then stick to it. If not, then please don't bring up an inflammatory straw man like that because it drags the level of discussion down several notches. But DEFINITELY, whatever you do, don't bring it up and then try to dodge responsibility for having said it by backing out right at the beginning of the next paragraph.
quote:But let's not pretend that this is a legal argument, because the law currently stands the other way, which is that abortion is not murder.
No one's pretending anything. There are people who believe that making abortion legal was not only a bad moral decision, but a bad legal call on the part of the judges that made it. Judges are fallible, and it is within people's rights to criticize the legal basis for their decisions.
quote:And if that law changes, it's far more likely to be from a perceived moral precedent thand a perceived legal one.
All human laws are rooted in human moral values. If the laws about abortion changed because of a value judgment, that would make them exactly like every other law that has ever been made or changed. Wouldn't that be a tragedy.
Posted by WntrMute (Member # 7556) on :
quote:Originally posted by Icarus: If something is not based on science it is subjective?
What about deduction? Logic?
Where logic takes you depends entirely on where you start from and what logical connections you find most valid. That starting place is subjective. What constitutes a logical connection is subjective. It cannot be quantified, it cannot be objectified, it is subjective.
Posted by WntrMute (Member # 7556) on :
tmservo makes several very good points.
The law is muddled. Very much so. What would unmuddle it would be to define a point before which there is no human person, and after which there is one. There is a standard in place now, though much violated, and that is the first breath. There have been other standards before. The 'quickening' (no, not from highlander) at around 18-20 weeks is when the mother can typically feel the baby (word used deliberately for propoganda-like effect) moving was probably one of the oldest ones.
I have my own opinion regarding this, I'm sure many people do. Right now the two more common are the first breath one and the moment of conception one. I find both extreme and inappropriate for practical and theological reasons.
As for the concern regarding people with impaired brain function, that is a valid concern, and the Schiavo case clearly illustrates the importance of settling that matter, given the ability for doctors to preserve a body that has no functioning brain. Given how this hinges on what would constitute 'meaningful' brain activity, it is a highly subjective issue as well.
I just happen to think that the two issues are linked in a fundamental way. (That's ALSO completely subjective. If you think about it, most things are. That's what makes this hard and not easy.)
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
quote:However, the fact that you disagree with that idea doesn't mean that your opponents are inventing their opinions out of whole cloth — ie, "starting from that position". Most of them ARRIVED at that position through some sort of thinking-type process. And they expect that with sufficient explanation and persuasion, they may be able to show other people the process they went through, and bring them around to agree with them.
A similar tactic might work for you if you wanted to try it
When you make an analogy that only stands up for those who pre-accept a premise, you aren't convincing anyone. You're preaching to the choir. That there may be a thinking process that makes the analogy apt is not a given.
quote:Doesn't stop you from trying to tar your opponents with it anyway, apparently. Seriously, if that's what you think people are saying, then stick to it. If not, then please don't bring up an inflammatory straw man like that because it drags the level of discussion down several notches. But DEFINITELY, whatever you do, don't bring it up and then try to dodge responsibility for having said it by backing out right at the beginning of the next paragraph.
No one will say it, and I'm not going to be castigated for suggesting someone has, thank you. I'd just as soon not derail things for the sake of someone expressing indignation at being so misrepresented by a straw man blah blah blah.
When people express the idea that a certain number of women dying or suffering so that a certain number of fetuses won't die is an acceptable trade, there's an unpleasant underlying thread that the lives of the would-be aborters, fully developed, thinking, feeling human beings, are of a lesser value. Of course, no one would express that, given the politically correct blah blah blah.
quote:No one's pretending anything. There are people who believe that making abortion legal was not only a bad moral decision, but a bad legal call on the part of the judges that made it. Judges are fallible, and it is within people's rights to criticize the legal basis for their decisions.
And there's people who believe that shooting at an doctor who performs abortions is a righteous act, because it prevents what to their eyes is murder.
I don't happen to agree that abortion is murder. Thus far both law, and if polls are to be believed, a majority of Americans agree.
And having sat through an extended labor, I find that those who condone forcing a woman who doesn't want her child to go through that process consider themselves morally superior somewhat laughable.
quote:All human laws are rooted in human moral values. If the laws about abortion changed because of a value judgment, that would make them exactly like every other law that has ever been made or changed. Wouldn't that be a tragedy.
Extremely debatable. Arguably, we don't have laws against murder and theft simply because we find murder and theft morally repugnant, but because if murder were legal no one would feel safe to walk in the street, and if theft were legal no one could safely practice commerce, and society would wither. Against which test, the legality of abortion's cost to society becomes the real issue, not a malleable and transitory moral idea.
Which may be why some would prefer to make it a moral issue. " "
quote:Right now, the law has it both ways. Yes, the law contends abortion is legal, fine. But if a pregnant woman is badly mugged and miscarries as a result, in 34 states, the mugger can be prosecuted for manslaughter (and in a few, forms of murder). So, which is it? If it is not human, as the law contends, then he should only be guilty of the destruction of property, with a value of only the mineral composite, about $7. This would be a misdemeanor with no jail sentence. But we have several cases where we have people in prison for this type of crime; we've also convicted people on double homicide for murder of a pregnant mother.
Arguably, it is the desire of the mother to bring the baby to term that makes the difference. A woman who has an abortion performed has, lost "$7 of mineral composite"; a woman who loses a pregnancy she planned to bring to term has lost a potential child, and seen all her discomfort during her pregnancy, all her planning and all her wishes for her child, come to nothing.
Admittedly, the law has its issues, and it's difficult to quantify or legally identify matters of desire and intent.
quote:What we have done with abortion and medical practice laws in states is that we haven't made the concept of aborting a child fully "legal" we've just made an "exemption" for practitioners, which in turn has made them some very wealthy people.
I have to disagree with the latter.
First, virtually every doctor who practices abortion in this country receives death threats, and has to live in a state of heightened security and fear for themselves and their family. Many doctors choose not to perform abortions at all, for just this reason.
Secondly, OB/GYN malpractice insurance is incredibly expensive. A doctor who takes it upon themselves to perform such procedures is agreeing to take a huge hit. Either they're paying it out of pocket, or their institution is paying it, and paying the doctor a lower salary as a result.
Doctors, generally, make a comfortable salary, no question. But a doctor who wanted to get rich would be insane to go into abortion. A specialty like heart surgery or plastic surgery would pay far more money and not have to worry about suspicious packages arriving on their doorstep, a factor no amount of money can really remedy.
[ January 12, 2006, 12:58 PM: Message edited by: Sterling ]
Posted by jeniwren (Member # 2002) on :
quote:You want to say "kill the tiny human lives inside them." My point is at what point is this a 'tiny human life' in the first place? This is essential.
Going back to the question I asked that you didn't answer: If a human embryo isn't human life, what is it? It's not dead, so it must be alive. If it's alive, what is it? An acorn sown into the ground will only grow up to be an oak or die. It will not grow to be a pig or a potato. In that sense, it IS an oak, just at the earliest stage of development. We give lots of different names to humans at various stages of development. Baby, toddler, child, tween, teenager, adolescent, young adult, gen x'r, and so on. These names don't turn it into something other than human. What makes an embryo any different than a baby, other than a matter of time? One's more fragile than the other, but then so is the acorn more fragile. A squirrel does a fine job of eating the acorn, but will find it impossible 300 years older.
Posted by WntrMute (Member # 7556) on :
quote:Originally posted by jeniwren:
quote:You want to say "kill the tiny human lives inside them." My point is at what point is this a 'tiny human life' in the first place? This is essential.
Going back to the question I asked that you didn't answer: If a human embryo isn't human life, what is it? It's not dead, so it must be alive. If it's alive, what is it? An acorn sown into the ground will only grow up to be an oak or die. It will not grow to be a pig or a potato. In that sense, it IS an oak, just at the earliest stage of development. We give lots of different names to humans at various stages of development. Baby, toddler, child, tween, teenager, adolescent, young adult, gen x'r, and so on. These names don't turn it into something other than human. What makes an embryo any different than a baby, other than a matter of time? One's more fragile than the other, but then so is the acorn more fragile. A squirrel does a fine job of eating the acorn, but will find it impossible 300 years older.
Actually, the acorn is more sturdy than a seedling. The seedling needs water in proper amounts, the right kind of soil, and plenty of light. The acorn doesn't need anything other than a hiding place from a squirrel. And, ultimately, in form purpose and function, an acorn is not an oak. It is an acorn. It is what it is. What it isn't is a tree. You don't point at an acorn and say, "look at that tree," because it isn't a tree. It is something other than a tree. It could possibly become a tree, but the odds are against it.
An embryo is an embryo. It is what it is. What it isn't is a person, just like any other part of a body that is not attached to a functioning human brain. And from the moment of conception it could possibly become a person, but the odds (even with modern medicine) are against it.
Posted by Omega M. (Member # 7924) on :
The fact that pregnancy is hard for many women is one reason I'm slowly but surely coming around to the position that abortion should be legal until some point at which the fetus typically looks like a human. This also would ensure that women could always use birth control pills and other devices that sometimes prevent implantation of embryos.
Once a fetus looks like a human, I wouldn't allow the killing of it (except incidentally as a result of a medical procedure that tries to save both the fetus and the mother) because I have a suspicion that people are biologically wired at least in part to be altruistic to other human-looking creatures and that to ignore that wiring might be dangerous. But I doubt we have any immediate impulses to defend tiny cell clumps that don't look or think like us to any degree but that vastly complex scientific process tell us are distinct organisms of our species. If that means I have to answer "no" to the question "Do you believe that all human organisms are equal?", well, so be it.
Posted by jeniwren (Member # 2002) on :
*leaving this alone now*
We're just talking circles around each other.
Happy further contemplation, Mute and Omega. Posted by WntrMute (Member # 7556) on :
A fetus is obviously uniquely human towards the end of the first trimester, definately no later than the very beginning of the second trimester.
There was a magazine (I think Time) that had a series of pictures of embryonic and fetal development by week for several different species, including human. As I recall it wasn't until about the 12th week that a human fetus looked different from a chimpanzee one. The difference between pigs, cows, and human was very clear by the eighth week. But it's been a while and I can certainly be wrong.
Posted by Topher (Member # 9028) on :
Abortion should have legal limits on the issue of when, not if.
I believe that during the first trimester is OK. As long as it doesn't have a heart beat. It's obviously a complex issue, and really up to the individual. However, aborting when it has a heart beat is quite inhumane and should be illegal...One of those things where if you are going to do it - make up your mind and do it ASAP. In the first few weeks is best, when it is only a cluster of cells with the potential for life, but not the actualization.
Posted by WntrMute (Member # 7556) on :
I beleive the heart first starts around week 5 or 6, which is actually before even the most primitive parts of the brain start to function (it's about week 8 when the brain stem is functional).
Posted by VetaMega (Member # 8366) on :
quote:Originally posted by jeniwren: As I said before regarding tumors, an arm cannot function independent of the body to which it genetically belongs. Chop it off, it dies. If you will, it's a tool of the body. If it becomes gangrenous, it may become a parasite. But at no point did it ever have the potential to become a seperate entity capable of independent life.
Human embryos are genetically unique, and given time and basic care, will become seperate and independent of their hosts. You don't gestate your arm or leg so that it can one day fall off and run free.
Yes, and until the embryo becomes an independent entity, it is still part of the mother. If the embryo cannot survive without the mother, then how is it independent human life? It is like a tumor; cut it off and it dies. The potential for being human life means nothing. Embryos die of complications all the time; they never got to become independent entities. Indeed, I have the potential to become the president of the United States; does it mean I will be or that you have to treat me like one - it's not the same, but all the same, potential shouldn't mean anything .
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:If the embryo cannot survive without the mother, then how is it independent human life?
A baby can't survive without someone caring for him or her, either.
In addition, you seem to conceded that as soon as an artificial womb is developed, the entity will become a human being.
Which is an awfully strange definition of human being.
Posted by WntrMute (Member # 7556) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: A baby can't survive without someone caring for him or her, either.
However, there is no specific need for that care-taker to be any specific person, which is not the case for an implanted embryo or underdeveloped fetus.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:However, there is no specific need for that care-taker to be any specific person, which is not the case for an implanted embryo or underdeveloped fetus.
So, again, the instant an artificial womb is developed those fetuses (embryos are not aborted) will become human beings.
Again, an awfully strange definition of human being.
Posted by WntrMute (Member # 7556) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: (embryos are not aborted)
First off, I have already stated when I think something is a human being, and it has nothing to do with wombs -- artificial or otherwise. I will not argue a postition that you put into my mouth.
Second off, the comment I quoted above is especially remarkable, since a) a fetus is ( by definition ) something that exists after the 8th week of pregnancy and b) the majority of abortions occur before the 8th week is reached. This creates a conundrum. Either there are substatially fewer abortions being performed than are being reported, or someone got their terminology wrong.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:First off, I have already stated when I think something is a human being, and it has nothing to do with wombs -- artificial or otherwise. I will not argue a postition that you put into my mouth.
First, I didn't do that. I didn't say anything about your definition.
I was responding to a very specific definition of human being. I'm sorry I didn't do an extensive search to see what your view was when you inserted yourself into this conversation to challenge my response to that specific definition. Regardless, I put no words in your mouth.
That aside, I except the fact that you weren't actually responding to my point. Since what you posted strengthens my point, I'll move along. Thank you for supporting my argument.
As for the terminology, you're right. But for the 8-week thing, I'm pretty sure you're wrong. The numbers I keep seeing are 88% of abortions between 6 and 12 weeks.
Posted by WntrMute (Member # 7556) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: I was responding to a very specific definition of human being. I'm sorry I didn't do an extensive search to see what your view was when you inserted yourself into this conversation to challenge my response to that specific definition. Regardless, I put no words in your mouth.
That aside, I except the fact that you weren't actually responding to my point. Since what you posted strengthens my point, I'll move along. Thank you for supporting my argument.
As for the terminology, you're right. But for the 8-week thing, I'm pretty sure you're wrong. The numbers I keep seeing are 88% of abortions between 6 and 12 weeks.
If your point is that viability is irrelevant, then I would tend to agree. If your point is that either 'at first breath' or 'at the moment of conception' metrics are best, then I would disagree. However, the point is still correct that a baby is not tied to an individiual the same way as an embyo is, at this specific point in time. So the argument that a baby is dependent for its support is not really a valid comparison at all. Tangentially, I suspect that artificial wombs would be prohibited. I can't be the only one who found 'Brave New World' to be unsettling in that regard.
As for the majority of abortions being performed by the eighth week:
Admittedly, this data is incomplete, but since it is dealing with a percentage instead of raw numbers I doubt it is substatially off the mark.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:If your point is that viability is irrelevant, then I would tend to agree. If your point is that either 'at first breath' or 'at the moment of conception' metrics are best, then I would disagree. However, the point is still correct that a baby is not tied to an individiual the same way as an embyo is, at this specific point in time. So the argument that a baby is dependent for its support is not really a valid comparison at all.
It is when you're talking definition of human life - which we were - and not when abortion should be allowed. Because it means that the definition of humanity is based on humanity's technical prowress - an untenable definition at best.
Posted by WntrMute (Member # 7556) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: It is when you're talking definition of human life - which we were - and not when abortion should be allowed. Because it means that the definition of humanity is based on humanity's technical prowress - an untenable definition at best.
So far as a perfect and absolute definition would go, yes. I think the VetaMega was making a point from a more practical point of view with regards to the law, which is currently contradictory in regards to this matter.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
I was just acknowledging that I was nit-picking myself. ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)