Abortion - What do you think about it?

[allan2]

"If I fire-bomb a house that has not yet been completed, can I be charged with arson? Why?"

Not even close to the same thing. There is no such thing as an "80% completed self". The self either exists, or it doesn't. I.e. that first moment of self-awareness has come to pass, or hasn't. Before that, there is no self.

 

[allan2]

Troquilet: "Allan and others: several have pointed out to me my utter lack of morals. To be abrupt, I don't need a moral code because I am confident in my ability to judge each situation."

Yes, often it is the question of choosing between two evils. But how do you even evaluate the greater evil without some sense of morality?

And some things are constant: murder (not self-defense) is always evil. When you confine this only to specific situational evaluation, you risk justifying murder in certain cases. Like Stalin's people probably did: "yes killing is bad, but these people are enemies of the state, and therefore of the people, so the lesser evil would be to get rid of them." Not saying that YOU would find this acceptable (and guess what, if you DON'T find it acceptable, then you have MORALS! Just didn't know it ), but confining moral judgement to situation ALONE can very well lead to things like this. You see, morality is basically DISCIPLINE--discipline to do the right thing, even when there are no other compulsions to do so.



"Wrong. Women have been doing abortions for thousands of years. Just the inconvenient way. If God wanted an 11th Commandment on the topic he'd easily have included it."

You're right here. I recall reading about women in ancient Persia using an herb in a tea that would induce miscarriages. Just because there were no CLINICS doesn't mean there were no abortions. And secret as they were, God would be aware of them, right? I find it interesting then that the Bible (the "Word of God") doesn't say anything about this, if it is such a cut-and-dry moral issue.

Could it be that He left a FEW things up to us to figure out?

 

[FearlessLeader2]

Originally posted by The Troquelet
Allan and others: several have pointed out to me my utter lack of morals. To be abrupt, I don't need a moral code because I am confident in my ability to judge each situation.

As we have seen with Fearless, anyway, a strict moral code only leads to fallacy. Look at what he wants to do! He'd watch his own wife bleed to death. If that's the morals you want, you can have them.

I would love to see the chain of logic behind that ludicrous statement.

Originally posted by The Troquelet
Also several have seemed to indicate that they think I think abortion should not be stopped. That is true in a sense. I am completely against abortion! I just think it's a waste of time to outlaw it. As you can see it's been done in other countries with no good results. IMHO it's much better to just teach sex education and protection, and still leave abortion for emergencies.

Protection? Condoms fail 1 time in 3. Pills can be forgotten, or outright defective. Babies have been born holding the IUDs that were supposed to prevent their conception. When there is a 100% effective form of birth control, your opinion will hold water. Oh...wait a minute...there IS a 100% effective birth control method. Abstinence. Why don't we each that instead? It worked on me for 29 years, it can work on others just as well.

Originally posted by The Troquelet
"And again, our religions (at least not the Bible--I've read all of it at one point--and I don't recall anything in the half of the Koran I've read, and not any Buddhist teachings I've heard of) don't touch this for some strange reason. Ever wonder why?



Because there were no abortion clinics?"

Wrong. Women have been doing abortions for thousands of years. Just the inconvenient way. If God wanted an 11th Commandment on the topic he'd easily have included it.

'Thou shalt not kill' comes to mind...

Originally posted by The Troquelet
Please don't say it's already included under thou shalt not kill, because we haven't even determined if we're killing or not.

How can it possibly be anything but killing? If you are pregnant, that means you will be giving birth to a human baby. If you take an action that prevents that birth, then that baby will die. How is this in any way unclear? The length you hedonists will go to to secure your license to frolic in a consequence-free environment never fails to sicken me.

Originally posted by The Troquelet
By Fearless' argument, each egg cell in a mother (there are about 500 of them I think) should be surgically extracted and conceived in petri dishes. Then the mother should be charged with negligence to her future children for not having a body fit to bear all of them, jailed, and the 500 kids should be farmed out to adoption.

I'm pretty sure this line of reasoning crosses several dimensional barriers, but feel free to explain it to me so I can try to figure out which hallucinogen you were on when you typed this gibberish.

 

[FearlessLeader2]

Originally posted by allan2
FL2: "*SNIP*At that stage in its development, an embreyo or fetus has no need of autonomic functions so it does not have them."

Yes it has need that certain functions happen in it, which the mother's body fulfills in entirety. Like I said, it is still ENTIRELY part of the mother at that point. It is "life", but not a "self" in even the most rudimentary sense.

If it is life, then killing it is wrong unless it is to survive.

Originally posted by allan2
"Other than this lack of need for minimal brain functions, and level of development, the embreyo and coma patient are identical."

But one can argue that a "self" exists in a coma patient, unconscious or dormant. The existance of this self is established already, and when coma patients wake up IT IS STILL THERE. I.e. there is a continuity. The self is not DEAD at that point, but dormant--hence this continuity observed in coma patients. Death means "no more".

One can also argue that while memories remain in chemical storage in the brain, the self disappears until the coma patient has recovered. Once recovery is achieved, the memory kick-starts the personality. Unlike the movies, most coma patients who recover with any significant memory loss typicall exhibit very different personalities than what they entered the coma with.

Originally posted by allan2
But in an embryo (pre-brain), the self has not established its existence. There is not even UNCONSCIOUS awareness of a "selfdom". (Animals can be said to be at least UNCONSCIOUSLY self-aware--perhaps like a human in lucid-dream state, in a way. But even humans in normal dream state have a self-awareness.)

Can you see a difference between a DORMANT self (coma patient) and a self that doesn't even exist yet?

Yes, albeit vaguely, but OTOH, the similarities are glaringly obvious. Can you see the similarities?

Originally posted by allan2
I don't see it as a "beat-the-clock" game. I see it as, are you killing a "self"? You either are or you aren't.

"Both are human, both are effectively mindless, and both have a right to life."

Well, one has a dormant self, and one does not have a self at all.

So, what you're saying is, neither has a functioning 'self'.

Originally posted by allan2
(And to clarify, "self" doesn't mean "sentience"--sentience is a STATE of self. "Self" is merely the knowledge (conscious or unconscious) that "I exist!"

That is the definition of sentience.

Originally posted by allan2
When I said I err on inclusiveness, I wasn't joking. I could state with relative certainty that a fetus who has just developed its brain isn't yet sentient. But it is aware of sensations, and as some have claimed memories from the womb, it does have a rudimentary "self". But sentience is very subjective (I mean, who can define it, or judge externally when it has appeared?)--so an OBJECTIVE standard, in order to err on the side of inclusiveness, would be the minimal apparatus needed to have a "self" which may or may not be sentient--a brain. So I think that abortion after brain development should be considered murder.

Here we disagree. I only think it is murder when the mother's life is not at stake.

Originally posted by allan2
What I have my doubts about is BEFORE. When does the BEING (the self) begin to exist?)

Let's truly 'err' on the side of caution then, and just ban contraceptive abortions altogether. You doubt, I am certain. Is it not prudent then, to err on the side of greatest caution?

Originally posted by allan2
DNA does not determine a human being.

If I had six pairs of chromosomes, I assure you I would not be human.

Originally posted by allan2
Identical twins have IDENTICAL DNA, yet are two separate AND DIFFERENT selves entirely. And would a clone of Hitler automatically become Hitler? Surely the SELF is the operating factor for "beinghood". The "self" is what transcends the material--and it is in the mind.

'Identical' twins do not have identical DNA. During cell mitosis, genes get transposed, reversed, or otherwise misplaced. Identical twins stop being identical after the first mitosis, after that they're just really similar.

 

[FearlessLeader2]

Originally posted by Hurricane
There are millions of children in the Third World that would be more than happy to get to be adopted. But most families want "better" children.

Oh. Are you implying then, that murdering Group X is done solely to promote the adoption of Group Y? Forgive me, but Barbara Streisand.

 

[FearlessLeader2]

Originally posted by Hurricane
I can burn MY OWN house if I want to, no matter if it´s still under construction or if it´s complete. Your example makes no sense.

There's a few local law enforcement and emergency response agencies that might disagree with you. Insurance company might not be too thrilled either...

Originally posted by Hurricane
That is not what I said. I said that if I invite 10 to the party, does it make a difference WHEN I invite them? No, it doesn´t.

Given the rather large number of combinations of genes possible to a single sample of the humans genome, I think it makes a big difference. Every sperm/egg combination will produce a new and unique combination of traits, and thereby a unique individual. So it matters. To carry the analogy a bit further:
Say I invited a, d, e, g, h, k, m, p, s, and u to the party. If all 26 letter arrive, in alphabetical order, and you shoot the first ten, half of the people on my guest list are going to die. Not that it matters, when T shows up, he's gonna start hitting on every vowel in the joint...

Originally posted by Hurricane
FL:"So do you feel that abortion should or should not be provided to women who want it merely for contraception?"
Yes, it should, as long as it is before the fetus has developed into a human.

But, but,

Originally posted by Hurricane Just so you don´t get me wrong, I DO NOT see abortion as a way of contraception, and a woman who regularly makes abortions has probably mental problems and should meet a psychologist. Still, my theoretical example makes sense.

 

[Hurricane]

At first I thought of not replying at all to your comments, FL2, since each of your replies are taken so out of context that a reasonable debate is impossible. You clearly don´t even try to understand what I (or any other here) am trying to say. You just repeat those same old arguments we have read the last 15 pages of this thread.

So just some short comments:

Originally posted by FearlessLeader2
There's a few local law enforcement and emergency response agencies that might disagree with you. Insurance company might not be too thrilled either...

This comment is even more ridiculous than your first example. First, we are talking about morals, not about insurance policies or fire squad routines. I have the moral right to destroy what I own. While the method in this case might be under argument, everybody agrees that I can do what I want with my property.

Given the rather large number of combinations of genes possible to a single sample of the humans genome, I think it makes a big difference. Every sperm/egg combination will produce a new and unique combination of traits, and thereby a unique individual. So it matters. To carry the analogy a bit further:
Say I invited a, d, e, g, h, k, m, p, s, and u to the party. If all 26 letter arrive, in alphabetical order, and you shoot the first ten, half of the people on my guest list are going to die. Not that it matters, when T shows up, he's gonna start hitting on every vowel in the joint...

Ah yes, but the abstinent woman also shoots most of the party-goers by not letting them be born. A woman has 500 egg cells. Every one of these has the full potential of human life. If these are destroyed during menstruation or shortly after they have started growing does not change the fact that only a few of these eventually will become humans.

But, but,

Maybe I used the word way poorly (you know, english is only my third language). So to clarify, by "I DO NOT see abortion as a way of contraception" I mean that abortion shouldn´t be used as contraception in the same way as condoms, pills and other similar products are used for contraception. I.e. a woman that has unprotected sex and with the reasoning that "I can always get an abotion later" is clearly doing wrong. But if a woman gets pregnant wihout wanting it (condom fails, rape, drunk one-night stand without protection, couple separates etc) she has all the right to make an abortion.

 

[allan2]

Originally posted by FearlessLeader2

If it is life, then killing it is wrong unless it is to survive.

Definition of murder is NOT killing "life", but killing HUMAN BEINGS (not in self-defense). A pre-mental embryo is life, but it is not yet a human being--at least the way I see the definition.

One can also argue that while memories remain in chemical storage in the brain, the self disappears until the coma patient has recovered. Once recovery is achieved, the memory kick-starts the personality. Unlike the movies, most coma patients who recover with any significant memory loss typicall exhibit very different personalities than what they entered the coma with.

I knew a coma patient. She was the same person when she came out after about a month. I don't get my observations JUST from movies, although I'll admit I'm no medical professional....

Yes, albeit vaguely, but OTOH, the similarities are glaringly obvious. Can you see the similarities?

Yes, I can see similarities. But I think a line can be drawn between them, based on what is established to exist and what isn't (yet).

So, what you're saying is, neither has a functioning 'self'.

But one has an EXISTING self, and one doesn't. "Functioning" is not as important as "existing"--I'm not utilitarian that way.

That is the definition of sentience.

No, a dog knows it exists. Dogs display behavior indicative of this knowledge. Dogs even have what could be called rudimentary "personalities" (I know, I'm a dog lover). So do cats. Neither are what we call "sentient" though.

Knowledge of existance doesn't require consciousness. In dreams, one is still aware of one's existance (especially those dreams where you show up for work naked, lol ).

Here we disagree. I only think it is murder when the mother's life is not at stake.

The definition of murder implies that caveat, so I didn't think it was necessary to include it. But yes, self-defense is not murder. I agree.

Let's truly 'err' on the side of caution then, and just ban contraceptive abortions altogether. You doubt, I am certain. Is it not prudent then, to err on the side of greatest caution?

Like I said, I'm on the fence. But I choose to define a BEING as something higher than a group of cells. And that "higher" thing comes with the mind. In a way, I'm afraid that if we give the sanctity of beinghood to something that is JUST material, we cheapen what it means to be a human being--that is, the sacredness if you will of that which transcends the material.

Also, should we have murder investigations for that rice-grain-sized, pre-self embryo that is miscarried? After all, a miscarriage COULD be intentional, and many probably can be attributed to reckless endangerment (a pregnant woman overexerting herself for instance).

See, I also err on the side of burden of proof on the prosecution--that a crime was even committed would be a start. Definition of murder: killing a human being (a human "self") not in self-defense. So the prosecution must establish that a human self was in fact killed, before any further prosecution can happen. And that which does not exist YET, does not exist. That is not only fair, it is common sense. Right?

The reason I sit on the fence at all here, is because some day we may discover that "selfhood" begins before the mind--medical science discovers new things every day, and our knowledge isn't perfect. But before that day comes, we can't go around prosecuting people for crimes that can't be proven, now, can we? That is very, well, UN-American, to say the least. It would also be immoral.

'Identical' twins do not have identical DNA. During cell mitosis, genes get transposed, reversed, or otherwise misplaced. Identical twins stop being identical after the first mitosis, after that they're just really similar.

But those two selves can be very dissimilar, right? I would submit that if no gene-switching occurred (it's probably happened that way at least once sometime), there still will develop two distinct selves.

But what about the clone of Hitler? Will he become Hitler? Or are there other things besides genes, that make the person?

 

[CurtSibling]

I am flabbergasted to see this ancient thread still alive!

Well over it's 300 post limit, and teetering on the brink of a
super-power slug out between two mighty templars!


I can't foresee a definite end to the argument...it will never be resolved...

 

[allan2]

"I can't foresee a definite end to the argument...it will never be resolved..."

Well, at least until medical science comes up with a revolutionary discovery that tells us once and for all what's what. But perhaps not even then....

 

[FearlessLeader2]

As long as there are people who are unwilling to accept the consequences of their actions, there will be contraceptive abortions. I see little point in continuing this, allan2. You're not sitting on the fence, you're clinging to it. Please don't take that as a flame, and if you feel that you have to have the last word, go ahead and do so.

I expect the correct phrase remains, 'peace out'.

 

[Fez_Monk]

I guess I'll have the last word then....

I still stick to my non-coercive pro life solution. I'm not going to force my views on others via an anti-abortion law but I oppose public funding of abortion.

What a long thread.....and no definite conclusions on the subject have been made either.

 

[allan2]

I'm not jockeying for the last word, but after my weeklong vacation in the great north woods, I come back and find I need to clarify something:

FL: "You're not sitting on the fence, you're clinging to it."

I can't say I do that very often, either. But if you don't know all the data, should you jump to a conclusion anyway? I don't think it's very prudent to do so. So I "cling" to the fence, rather than make rash judgments without knowing all the data.

A wise man often asks questions, a fool often "answers" them--that's something my Dad once told me, when I thought I "knew it all". He was right.

Not saying you're a fool though--I happen to know that in most things anyway, you're far from it. Just saying that I tend to use more caution when dealing with the issue of when the government should use force on people. I just happen to think we should know more before extending its use. There are many moral issues I feel quite sure about, but not this one. And I'm not alone--many good, moral people (i.e. not "welfare cows" on crack or whatever) similarly find themselves unsure about this one.

And if you truly don't know, it's better to be honest and admit it, rather than carry on like you DO know. Maybe you really DO know in this case--but I do not.

FL: "As long as there are people who are unwilling to accept the consequences of their actions, there will be contraceptive abortions."

You're right, many abortions are likely the result of people unwilling to accept the consequences of their actions. But that in and of itself doesn't make it wrong. Are radar detectors wrong for the same reason (I know they're illegal in many states, but are they WRONG)? How about cramming for a test the night before, to try and escape the consequences of partying, instead of not studying on schedule, per the syllabus, like you should? Foolish maybe, but not wrong morally.

If abortion is murder, then yes, it would be wrong--but wrong for the fact that it is murder. Motivation would not mean anything to me in that case--so why mention it even in passing? If you take that tack, does that mean you're okay with abortions for rape victims? If it is murder, then *I* wouldn't be.

Fez Monk: "I still stick to my non-coercive pro life solution. I'm not going to force my views on others via an anti-abortion law but I oppose public funding of abortion."

I oppose this also. Legal is one thing--subsidized by unwilling taxpayers is another. That's DEFINITELY a misguided use of government force.

 

[Pangur Bán]

Obviously this has been a topical subject. I think it's an impossible question to answer. If the unborn baby is life equal to anything else, abortion is the moral equivalence of murder. But if it is not regarded as life at all, it really doesn't matter what happens.

I'm going to get slammed for ressurecting this, amn't I?