an abortion thread with no personal attacks

[El_Machinae]

Given that I didn't consent to being born, but that existence was foisted upon me, I don't know if you can say that the 'pro-life' crowd respects the intrinsic rights of the unborn more than the pro-choice.

A fundamental aspect of 'rights' is that you cannot do things to someone without their consent.

By the way "having a heartbeat" is a fairly inappropriate way of determining whether a person counts as a person. This would make organ donation (and heart transplantation) quite weird, since a heart transplant requires taking a healthy heart and replacing a sick one.

Again, sentience is the best metric.

 

[Farm Boy]

However, just because you focus in a different area doesn't necessarily mean you wouldn't sign the anti-abortion bill were it to come to your desk. That's really what it comes down to. If you had the power to ban abortion, or to overturn Roe v. Wade, would you do it? It sounds like your answer is "No." So even if you're against abortion, I would not consider you "Pro-life" rather I would consider you "Pro-choice." You can't be "Both." Romney tried that and I didn't believe him either

You don't have to believe me. I have chosen what I hope is the more effective path in attempting to create the world our religion teaches us we should strive for. Appealing to force of law is the quick and easy path here and I don't believe it is the one that serves our lord best.

 

[GhostWriter16]

You don't have to believe me. I have chosen what I hope is the more effective path in attempting to create the world our religion teaches us we should strive for. Appealing to force of law is the quick and easy path here and I don't believe it is the one that serves our lord best.

Wait, you're Christian? Have you mentioned that before?

I never claimed that the force and law should be the *Only* thing we should do, but I don't think consenting to what we consider to be murder to be legal because its "Too easy" to just ban it (Or really I think you believe it would be too hard and would not be effective.)

Think of it this way, if slavery could be "Legally regulated" or it could be banned, which would you prefer? Even if slavery would still go on illegally (And it does) I suspect you'd still want it banned.

Its the same here, for me.

 

[Traitorfish]

When did I say that again?

You are of the opinion that the unwillingness of the Northern states in the years before 1861 to achieve democratic consensus with the Southern states on the issue of slavery legitimised the cause of Southern secession. As a result, you are critical of the unilateral military suppression of the Southern insurrection. This appears contrary to your stated disregard for democratic decision-making on the matter of abortion.

That said, abortion is much, much more evil than slavery. At least slavery wasn't murder (More akin to kidnapping, which is bad enough.)

You think that it's worse to destroy wholly non-sentient beings than to enslave fully sentient ones?

I agree, but you can't be both.

I don't disagree, but the observation is banal, because all you're saying is that two political camps constructed in opposition to each other are in opposition to each other. You're not actually saying anything of ethical significance.

 

[Leoreth]

Wait, you're Christian? Have you mentioned that before?

Not everyone feels the need to loudly proclaim their beliefs, you know.

 

[Terxpahseyton]

Isn't that what this forum is for?

 

[GhostWriter16]

You are of the opinion that the unwillingness of the Northern states in the years before 1861 to achieve democratic consensus with the Southern states on the issue of slavery legitimised the cause of Southern secession. As a result, you are critical of the unilateral military suppression of the Southern insurrection. This appears contrary to your stated disregard for democratic decision-making on the matter of abortion.

Not exactly, but that's a topic for another thread.

You think that it's worse to destroy wholly non-sentient beings than to enslave fully sentient ones?

I don't think sentience is the point. Humanity is.

I don't disagree, but the observation is banal, because all you're saying is that two political camps constructed in opposition to each other are in opposition to each other. You're not actually saying anything of ethical significance.

I wasn't trying All I was saying is that Farm Boy's claim that he is politically pro-choice but is still pro-life isn't consistent, in my opinion.

 

[Terxpahseyton]

Sorry first forget that and then my reply magically disappeared. Also my compliment to Winston Hughes and Traitorfish for their awesome debating culture. So here again:

I'm not following you here, I thought bernie was responding to the possibility of considering eggs alone as worthy of human protections and what, if any, moral burden a woman would have by not conceiving a child every time she would possibly be able to.

The two are very distinct questions.

If eggs are worthy of human protection depends on what you base this worthyness on (being a person, being human, being sentient, having a soul...) and what consequences this is supposed cause (must be protected, can on sundays...).
Now I see no good reason to protect cells, but base the worth of life on its mental state of mind (which cells don't posses), so I find this question easy to answer.

What at least I was talking about was not if eggs are worthy of protection, but if we have a responsibility to people that don't exist, but could if we only wanted to. By having sex without precautions against pregnancy. Now this is a moral responsibility that would require collective effort. Or to be more precise, cooperation with the member of the other gender.
Now it was argued that collective moral responsibility would not exist because it would be wrong to force someone else.
To that I have a hypothetical on my mind.

(1) Imagine a fat guy is about to accidentally fall off a bridge. You need help to pull him back up, or he will fall and die. People are around. You could approach them. Or you could just argue that you couldn't force them and walk away. Which is morally sound?

 

[mangxema]

Either you respect the rights of the unborn, or you don't.

Also the mother. Do not forget the mother.

 

[Farm Boy]

I have mentioned my faith in other threads, perhaps not as explicitly. You can classify me as a non-Calvinist Protestant and you can qualify my wife(as my personal life/views on abortion seem to be the topic of our exchange here) as Roman Catholic.

The comparison to slavery is not similar enough for me to buy in. Slave ownership does not suffer from the same definitional and humanist problems that conception, fatherhood, motherhood, and embryohood/fetushood/babyhood do. Restrictions on slave ownership also do not bring the might of law to bear against largely powerless members of society in the way which reproductive laws do.

I forget if you have mentioned it before, do you support banning abortions in case of ectopic pregnancies where both the mother and the unborn child are certain to die? If you are willing to consider allowing those abortions to be legal my wife certainly would not classify you as "pro-life."

You don't have to be a'o.k. with abortion to think that the federal or state governments of the USA should not be the entities which enforce our theological position on pregnancy and life. I believe attempting to use these particular institutions, in fact, sets our cause back and costs, rather than saves, lives.

 

[Terxpahseyton]

Also the mother. Do not forget the mother.

The mother should have the right to kill a sentient human being because it is otherwise inconvenient for a few months?


Helloooooo?

(Not talking about early abortions or risk of life situations)

 

[timtofly]

You are of the opinion that the unwillingness of the Northern states in the years before 1861 to achieve democratic consensus with the Southern states on the issue of slavery legitimised the cause of Southern secession. As a result, you are critical of the unilateral military suppression of the Southern insurrection. This appears contrary to your stated disregard for democratic decision-making on the matter of abortion.


You think that it's worse to destroy wholly non-sentient beings than to enslave fully sentient ones?


I don't disagree, but the observation is banal, because all you're saying is that two political camps constructed in opposition to each other are in opposition to each other. You're not actually saying anything of ethical significance.

Ok. I am going to pick on you in a friendly way, so I am not trying to offend you purposefully, but private property in the US is one of those things introduced from the conception of this country. In both cases the democratic consensus was that slaves and fetuses were/are private property. So on that basis alone, both had to fight to gain even a semblance of "rights".

It is harder for one to give a fetus rights, for obvious reasons, but even some toddlers unless properly trained are about as sentient as a fetus. They obviously have a better chance being no longer kept in a closed environment.

So yes having private property should not be a right, but that has been ingrained in the psyche of most 2nd generation Americans, because that is part of the "dream" of being an American.

For both African Americans and to some extent a fetus after a certain point of developement (sentience) should not even have to fight for rights. They should just be allowed to be who they are. It is my opinion that neither are private property. They both seem to receive a lot of prejudice though.

There are a couple of instances even in the Bible where ancients were aware that a fetus had sentience and knew what was going on. For some reason the brain does not retain memories until after a certains age, so it is any one's guess what is going on. I do not think that it would be recorded in history, if there was no sentience though. At what point does one have to give up their own desires for those of another "equal" person? This seems to be the biggest sticking point. I think that every one should have an equal opportunity at life, no matter how handicapped or genius they are. I would not call that a right, but a respect. I too am not fond of rights, because no one should be forced to entitle another more than one is capable of doing so. If we train people to respect on equal footing, then no one has a need to claim rights. I doubt though, we will never run out of "things" that need rights.

 

[Terxpahseyton]

Also, to the religious people: I recently picked up that thourhgout Christian history, the catholic Church assumed that a baby was as soon a being with a soul, as it would be noticed by its movements by the mother. The assumption war, that then the spark of life would have risen.
In the 19th century, it became possible to diagnose pregnancy before such a "spark of life" was noticeable. The Pope reacted by deciding that from now on during the whole of pregnancy there was a soul present, which caused the today still present Christian idea of the soul and pregnancy.

What do Christians think about that?

 

[LucyDuke]

Interested in speculating regarding the shift in adoption practices and how birth mothers are treated in respect to their decision to abort or not abort a pregnancy?

Absolutely. I think it's really very obvious what sorts of things encourage and discourage abortion, and accommodating pregnant women and mothers that didn't plan to be, whatever that may amount to, is always the right answer if you want them to end their pregnancy by giving birth.

I'll admit not being well-informed about adoption practices, but it makes good sense. Any social stigma that a woman endures by choosing to give birth will encourage abortions. Alleviating that stigma will remove that incentive.

And even apart from the stigmas, (far more important,) a lot of abortions are undergone by women that would much prefer to give birth if they thought they could adequately provide for a child. If they have the opportunity to see the child well provided for, even by someone else, some will opt for that. Good for them! Good for any arrangement that gives women better options.

Than you are pro-choice. To say you are pro-life would be a blatant lie, and answering that way on the poll I would see as nothing more than an attempt to skew the results.

This is a very simple debate. Either you respect the rights of the unborn, or you don't.

Plus, Roe VS Wade not only allows the killing, but forces state governments to stand by and watch as well. I applaud all the states like Mississippi that have tried to pass personhood amendments, even if they haven't passed

Death to the barbaric institution.

This is awfully nasty, and I think, including the posts that follow it, betrays the spirit of the thread.


So does the word "inconvenient".

 

[Farm Boy]

This is awfully nasty, and I think, including the posts that follow it, betrays the spirit of the thread.

For what it is worth, I do not believe he is being nasty to me. If anything, I am probably squarely being a heretic in the eyes of some for supporting the same goal he does, in the name of the same religion he does, while not agreeing on the basic terms. I can understand a degree of confusion and/or cognitive dissonance.

For my part, I have to admit to being somewhat bemused by somebody attempting to "force me out" of the pro-life camp when I have spent most of my working life advocating, and ultimately pursuing, adoption. This has not been a selfless action on my part - I have received a son, far more than I have invested.

If you want to be pro-life, go be pro-life.

 

[Leoreth]

I don't think sentience is the point. Humanity is.

"I don't think [objectively determinable attribute] is the point. [Vague arbitrary concept] is."

You're doing that a lot.

 

[GhostWriter16]

Also the mother. Do not forget the mother.

The mother does not have any right to destroy human life. The fetus' right to life trumps any right to bodily freedom liberals would like to argue she has.

I have mentioned my faith in other threads, perhaps not as explicitly. You can classify me as a non-Calvinist Protestant and you can qualify my wife(as my personal life/views on abortion seem to be the topic of our exchange here) as Roman Catholic.

I'm shocked your wife can tolerate your heretical opinions on abortion

The comparison to slavery is not similar enough for me to buy in. Slave ownership does not suffer from the same definitional and humanist problems that conception, fatherhood, motherhood, and embryohood/fetushood/babyhood do. Restrictions on slave ownership also do not bring the might of law to bear against largely powerless members of society in the way which reproductive laws do.

Anti-abortion legislation protects the MOST defenseless members of society, the unborn.

I forget if you have mentioned it before, do you support banning abortions in case of ectopic pregnancies where both the mother and the unborn child are certain to die? If you are willing to consider allowing those abortions to be legal my wife certainly would not classify you as "pro-life."

I think I've mentioned this type of thing before, but I've probably said different things at different times. In any case, I think in a case where there is absolutely no scientific or medical means by which to save anyone except via an abortion, I would say in such a rare case that the intent would actually be to save a life, rather than to kill, and so it would be necessary.

However, if there's any chance whatsoever to save both lives, there is a moral, and should be a legal, obligation to choose that path.

You don't have to be a'o.k. with abortion to think that the federal or state governments of the USA should not be the entities which enforce our theological position on pregnancy and life. I believe attempting to use these particular institutions, in fact, sets our cause back and costs, rather than saves, lives.

I fail to see how illegalizing abortion will cause a single innocent person to die that could be saved by any other means, when those means cannot coexist with illegalizing abortion. In other words, there's no case where banning abortion will cause more death, and indeed, it will cause less.

I'll admit not being well-informed about adoption practices, but it makes good sense. Any social stigma that a woman endures by choosing to give birth will encourage abortions. Alleviating that stigma will remove that incentive.

I agree with that. While my personal opinion is sex outside of marriage is a sin, its just that, a sin. Being pregnant is NOT a sin.

This is awfully nasty, and I think, including the posts that follow it, betrays the spirit of the thread.

Abortion threads are always going to be nasty. We can try to minimize it, but I think its a mistake to say that just because we can beat around the bush means that we should. Abortion is murder, its barbaric, and I have absolutely no fear of pointing this out.

Granted, we should always strive to be nice to individuals, but I don't feel any need to give any concessions to the pro-choice side.

So does the word "inconvenient"

It was absolutely convenient to have sex before you were ready (And that goes for the male as well as the female) and it is absolutely wrong.

For what it is worth, I do not believe he is being nasty to me. If anything, I am probably squarely being a heretic in the eyes of some for supporting the same goal he does, in the name of the same religion he does, while not agreeing on the basic terms. I can understand a degree of confusion and/or cognitive dissonance.

I'm not attacking you personally. There are a lot of people that think about abortion in similar terms as you, and I think if the people that thought like you did were willing to legally vote against abortion, it would be very difficult for those who are actually morally OK with abortion to be able to keep it. I think the instutition would either cease to exist or otherwise exist only in very liberal areas if believing abortion was murder actually led to being willing to vote against it.

For my part, I have to admit to being somewhat bemused by somebody attempting to "force me out" of the pro-life camp when I have spent most of my working life advocating, and ultimately pursuing, adoption. This has not been a selfless action on my part - I have received a son, far more than I have invested.

Naturally being 17 and single and in high school adoption would not even be possible for me ATM, but I'm certainly glad you did it

I wouldn't say I'm trying to force you out of the pro-life camp. I'd say I'm trying to force you to decide for yourself what you want to be instead of staying on the fence. Although, obviously, I can't do this.

The thing is, you know the truth in your heart (That abortion is evil and is murder) and you want to see it cease, but you are more than happy to have a government who simply sits by and allows these deaths to happen. That doesn't make sense. Something's got to give.

 

[Farm Boy]

I don't have much more to add at this point except to point out I am not "on the fence" here. My views are quite well defined. Just as I do not agree with the Catholic church that birth control and masturbation are reproductive sins against life so can I conceptualize that men of good faith can believe early-term abortions are not homicide.

When men and women of good faith disagree about faith, then government is not the right tool to use. The church is. You do not need to actually adopt a child to support the pro-life movement, you can support any number of women's resources that could make the decision to carry a child to term more likely. Women's shelters, financial aid to help cover uninsured medical expenses and prenatal care for low-income women, and more. Any church worth it's salt should be able to point you in the right direction here if you would like to get your hands dirty with volunteerism. =D

 

[Akka]

I don't think sentience is the point. Humanity is.

Is an arm a person ?
No.

Is someone having lost his four limbs a person ?
Yes.

Both have human DNA. What is the difference between the first and the second case ?
Sentience.

You may "don't think" sentience is the point, but well, you're wrong.

 

[Traitorfish]

I don't think sentience is the point. Humanity is.

What do you mean by "humanity", and why is it significant for you? (Presumably you're not using a Meleau-Pontian definition of humanity as an "historical idea", for example.)