Another abortion article...

[Perfection]

No no no no no don't give in to a nonsensical society just because that is the status quo.

Indeed abandon religion and join the ranks of the nonbelievers!

 

[Keirador]

I am abstracting conciousness to a slightly wider definition of being capable of thinking. Perhaps sentient is a more appropriate term

What about the mentally disabled, who cannot be said to have the same sentience as you or I? Do they have rights, in your view?

 

[cgannon64]

It's quite a slippery definition suffice it to say it involves the ability to be aware of oneself and to think things out.

And how do you know exactly when that develops?

Indeed abandon religion and join the ranks of the nonbelievers!

No, that's throwing out the last sensible part of society.

 

[Keirador]

Oh please let's not get into a general religious vs. atheist argument, we have plenty on our plate as is.

 

[Mark1031]

Is anyone else disgusted by all the bull**** rationalizations that are going on here? And what are we to make of the apparent link between being uneducated and ignorant and having abortions? What are we to make of people having multiple abortions? Would it be unfair to assume that, though the majority of Americans are for abortion, the majority of Americans would also have qualms about having one themselvs? What are we to make of that?

And finally, wouldn't you think that a mother who has already had a child would have had her opinions on abortions changed, at least slightly - and wouldn't the very same child be pretty creeped out, watching her mother abort a baby?

Sorry to make a harsh ad-hominum argument. But you are a 16-yr old rich urban virgin. You have not lived life in any way shape or form. You have the luxury of your simple black and white philosophy and to analyze the rational and behavior of those you haven’t met making decisions you have no lifes basis to conceive of or empathize with. You are free to do so but I find your trite moralizing gotch ya’s to be a bit sick. My wife had 2 abortions before we met. Many many women have. There are 3 lovely girls that would not be alive were it not for those abortions. People have qualms about all sorts of major things that they do in life. It is a part of life that if you are ever confronted with a decision of greater significance than what book to do an English report on you might begin to understand.

 

[cgannon64]

Sorry to make a harsh ad-hominum argument. But you are a 16-yr old rich urban virgin. You have not lived life in any way shape or form.

This is the argument that I, as an inexperienced 16-yr old, despise, but I hope I continue to despise it when I am 50. Experience does not equal wisdom. Experience is not necessarily the basis of a proper moral philosophy.

You have the luxury of your simple black and white philosophy and to analyze the rational and behavior of those you haven’t met making decisions you have no lifes basis to conceive of or empathize with.

Why don't have the basis to emphasize? We are both human; as a result, I think I can understand what they're going through, to the extent that any person can put themselves in another person's shoes without actually having the experience. If I can't empathize and guess what it's like to be a poor and pregnant woman, then no one can empathize with anyone, and you've destroyed the basis of all art, morality, and a million other human institutions.

You are free to do so but I find your trite moralizing gotch ya’s to be a bit sick.

Trite moralizing? What trite moralizing? You're throwing a catch-phrase at me but I don't see how it applies.

My wife had 2 abortions before we met. Many many women have. There are 3 lovely girls that would not be alive were it not for those abortions. People have qualms about all sorts of major things that they do in life. It is a part of life that if you are ever confronted with a decision of greater significance than what book to do an English report on you might begin to understand.

I was wary to comment on this at first, since we are talking about your wife, but you blew it when you said that I have never been "confronted with a decision of greater significance than what book to do an English report on". Cut the bull****, and cut the age-based condescension.

My age and lack of experience has nothing to do with the validity of my moral beliefs. The complexity and seriousness of having an abortion doesn't change whether it is moral or not. Doing something moral can be hard - if anything, that is an indication of the seriousness of decision, and the proper path to take. And finally, that people do things they have "qualms" about only reveals moral weakness, and a lacking in the capacity to actually act on one's morals.

I cannot guarentee that I wouldn't have the same moral weakness - but even if I would, I know that I shouldn't.

 

[Perfection]

What about the mentally disabled, who cannot be said to have the same sentience as you or I? Do they have rights, in your view?

Usually. Even though they are limited in certain respects they're generally capable of doing the same things humans do.

And how do you know exactly when that develops?

I don't.

No, that's throwing out the last sensible part of society.

I'll call it sensible when you Prove God Exists

 

[cgannon64]

I don't.

Then how could you take that chance? You are risking thousands or millions of people dying.

 

[Perfection]

Then how could you take that chance? You are risking thousands or millions of people dying.

Because I know it's not capable of such action in the first couple months (and probobly longer). Plus it has the reward of improved quality of life for women.

 

[shortguy]

Then how could you take that chance? You are risking thousands or millions of people dying.

I would be hard pressed to suppose that a 4 day old embryo is a person in any respect. Now, whether they deserve protection by virtue of being independent human life is another question. At later stages, though, I can't really see how abortion is acceptable except possibly in very unusual circumstances.

 

[Mark1031]

Experience does not equal wisdom. Experience is not necessarily the basis of a proper moral philosophy.

This is true but you can also be 100% certain that the wisest person in the world, if such an abstract entity exists, is not 16 or even 20 or 30.

Why don't have the basis to emphasize? We are both human; as a result, I think I can understand what they're going through, to the extent that any person can put themselves in another person's shoes without actually having the experience. If I can't empathize and guess what it's like to be a poor and pregnant woman, then no one can empathize with anyone, and you've destroyed the basis of all art, morality, and a million other human institutions.

We can all try to empathise but the less overlap in experience the less able you are to do it.

Trite moralizing? What trite moralizing? You're throwing a catch-phrase at me but I don't see how it applies.

I'm more than happy to discuss fetal development and the soul and the idea of what it means to be human. You took the experience of real people and started on about their bull**** arguments and why is it correlated with ignorance? IMO trite:Lacking power to evoke interest through overuse or repetition; hackneyed.

I was wary to comment on this at first, since we are talking about your wife, but you blew it when you said that I have never been "confronted with a decision of greater significance than what book to do an English report on". Cut the bull****, and cut the age-based condescension.

My age and lack of experience has nothing to do with the validity of my moral beliefs. The complexity and seriousness of having an abortion doesn't change whether it is moral or not. Doing something moral can be hard - if anything, that is an indication of the seriousness of decision, and the proper path to take. And finally, that people do things they have "qualms" about only reveals moral weakness, and a lacking in the capacity to actually act on one's morals.

I cannot guarentee that I wouldn't have the same moral weakness - but even if I would, I know that I shouldn't.

Look I am often amazed by the intellect relative to age of many people here, including you. However, it really irks me when people start ridiculing people who have made the difficult decision to have an abortion. While you may me quite smart if you are like most people your opinions and values will change between now and when you are 40. Whether it is wisdom or simply an ability to see more complexity in situations because of a greater appreciation of the vagaries of life, it will happen. I have found myself ridiculing things at one age which I went on to do myself at another. Live and learn, it’s hard to believe but it is true.

 

[Meleager]

This is a difficult debate.

Fetus are innocent of any crimes yet are sentenced to death. But if your a 16 year old girl who has been raped would anyone blame you for having an abortion.

People are so quick to label and condem. Christians are the worst offenders, i know from the inside. Perhaps christians would be better off getting off their moral high ground and actually helping and supporting and loving these people, regardless of the descision they make.

I havn't made up my mind about abortion though.

 

[A'AbarachAmadan]

Scientifically, the life of a separate organism begins at conception. This has nothing to do with religion or morality. At the point of conception, cells cease being components of their parents, and take on new and individual characteristics. So the question of abortion is not "whether or not it's killing someone", but rather "is the killing of this person justified?" If abortion advocates would simply admit this fact of science and move onwards from there, advancing reasons why murder in such cases should be legal, I probably wouldn't hate them as much.

Agree that life begins at conception and that abortion is the termination of human life, i.e. the killing of a person. I also belief that abortion should be legally acceptable as long as the fetus has not reached sentience. There are few of us that take this stance, but it is the only one that makes sense to me after years of thought and contemplation. I have the same belief at the end of life, once someone loses sentience, it is acceptable to terminate their life. In hindsite, the case in Florida fit this category for me. In fact, that definition is going in my next living will version.

Now based upon a couple other posts I'm not talking about someone who is 'special' or 'academically challenged', I'm talking vegetable state or lack of significant brain development on the front end.

 

[brennan]

Hmm, since we seem to have actually progressed to discussing the moral argument for abortion - heres my two penn'orth.

Womens bodies are evolved to have babies, however they are also capable of having babies any time they have sex over a period of many years. Compare this to a man. Men only have babies by impregnating women. Now in biological terms what happens after intercourse is more or less a biological war where the male's genes are trying to persuade the female's body that this a good time for the woman to be having a baby and that these are the genes to use.

The reason that many women find it so hard to have babies is partly a result of this long term bio warfare, which makes human females much less likely to become pregnant, since it is such a great drain on the resources of the woman's body, more than any other animal AFAIK in proportion to the resources available to a woman's body (except for some creatures with really weird habits like their offspring consume them at birth and so on).

Now we come to my (first) point: womens bodies are set up and primed to abort fetuses as their part of this little war, so miscarriages are perfectly natural up to quite late in a pregnancy. Given this, how is it so easy for you religious nuts to condemn abortion out of hand when womens' bodies do it themselves all the time?

Second point: With modern technology in natal clinics/wards premature babies have roughly a 50% survival rate at around 22/23 weeks, Around 0% just a few weeks earlier. By my reckoning this means that a foetus less than around this critical age cannot be considered a viable organism since it cannot survive on its own even without the best medical care in the world. Given this I would place the legal age for abortion around 4 months, pending advances in medical technology.

cgannon - go join the army (when you are old enough) and you could easily find yourself in a position where you may have to kill, did you back the war in Iraq? If so then you supported killings. It is easy for you to sneer when you inhabit the parochial little utopia you appear to exist in, go and have a hard life for a while and you may find morals a little less black and white.

 

[feline_dacat]

CGannon64, I don't see how you can be against abortion if you're saying things like this:

Also: What is so bad about an innocent person being killed, if God and Heaven exist? I am not saying murder is NOT wrong - it is still a man going outside of his God-given rights, and so is wrong.

But what is so bad about dying?

(I did have a long reply to kierador earlier but IE ate it... I'll re-post it later, when i have my own computer back)

 

[wit>trope]

this is a little off topic but recently there was an article in a major publication that argued that pro-choice people should "let" Roe "go" ... it was written by a pro-choice person. It argued that supporting Roe leaves pro-choices in the position of arguing for lousy law (lousy jurisprudence), etc.

 

[Gothmog]

First let me say that Keirador's argument is not fresh at all, I've heard it a million times. It's called an argument from authority. In this case it is not only a logical fallacy, it is also a blatent lie.

Keirador wrote:

Scientifically, the life of a separate organism begins at conception. This has nothing to do with religion or morality. At the point of conception, cells cease being components of their parents, and take on new and individual characteristics. So the question of abortion is not "whether or not it's killing someone", but rather "is the killing of this person justified?" If abortion advocates would simply admit this fact of science and move onwards from there, advancing reasons why murder in such cases should be legal, I probably wouldn't hate them as much.

Even if I allow that a separate organism is created at conception (which I don't), you still have made the jump from there to 'the killing of this person', a non sequitur. One might more reasonably ask: is the destruction of this Zygote justified? There is a specific scientific definition of Zygote.

more stuff ...

There really is no scientific or rational backing for claiming that the aborted child is not a human being; biologically, the life of an individual begins at conception. That is not my opinion, or my religious belief, that is scientific classification. By what basis can you scientifically disagree with this?
The question, therefore, is whether the unborn child has rights. You believe it does not, likely because it is undeveloped. I believe it does, because I believe that all humans have inalienable rights, one of those rights being a right to life, a right which supercedes a right to privacy or a right to not be uncomfortable. I do not presume to decide which humans have rights or not. The only safe position, for me, is that everyone has rights, including unborn children.

As for the idea that modern biology supports the opinion that the moment a sperm and egg join to form a diploid zygote that object is human, this is a stretch even beyond the existence of God IMO.

Are identical twins then the same human? What about artificially produced zygotes? Or, in a real twist, what about clones? There is no zygote as such in that case as there were no haploid cells involved. Would a human clone then not be human? Is a sheep clone not a sheep?

Please don't use the term 'potential human' to me, as others have aluded to this is not relevant. A lump of stone is a potential automobile, and every day is potentially my last. I put as much stock in potentiallity as I do in free will. They are intellectual concepts that are worth pondering but mean nothing in the real world.

Just because an undifferentiated cell may at some point in the future become part of a brain, that does not make it a brain or even part of a brain.

If you consider an undiferentiated lump of cells human, that's your call. If you think an embryo human, again your call. You could even call a single zygote, a detached limb, or clump of hair, human if you like.

But to think that your definition is any more or less arbitrary than anyone elses is the antithesis of logic and has nothing to do with science.

It is not that saying that a human is made at the moment of conception is foolish, it is trying to pass that off as a biological fact that is foolish.


cgannon wrote:

By the way I think an interesting fact that seems to be not-well-known is that the standard method of birth control, "the pill", is actually pretty much an abortion pill. It doesn't prevent pregnancy, but rather it kills the embryos a few days after they are conceived; by starvation, I think.

Wrong, dangerously wrong... where do you get this stuff? Is someone trying to rationalize something perhaps? How human.

Birth control pills, when used properly, prevent ovulation. Thus there is no egg to be fertilized.

It may be that you were thinking of the 'morning after pill'?

In that case a larger dose of the hormone is used to prevent implantation of the fertilized egg to the uterus. I guess, if one were determined to cast this in the worst possible light, one could say that the fertilized egg (a zygote not an embryo, blastula at most) is starved in that it would receive nutrients from the uterus if it implanted. Of course about 50% of fertilized eggs fail to implant anyway, and for other reasons.


Allow me to quote the late Tore grandee Lord Hailsham
The only freedom which counts is the freedom to do what some other people think to be wrong. There is no point in commanding freedom to do that which all will applaud. All the so-called liberties or rights are things which have to be asserted against others who claim that if such things are to be allowed their own rights are infringed or their own liberties threatened. This is always true, even when we speak of the freedom to worship, of the right to free speech or association, or of public assembly. If we are to allow freedoms at all there will constantly be complaints that either the liberty itself or the way in which it is exercised is being abused, and, if it is a genuine freedom, these complaints will often be justified. There is no way of having a free society in which there is not abuse. Abuse is the very hallmark of liberty.

 

[feline_dacat]

Good post GothMog - that is essentially what I wanted to say in reply to Keirador, but I was much less eloquent.

 

[FearlessLeader2]

Ya know what? We all know where I stand on this debate (some weird place in the middle), so I'm not gonna get into all that morality/immorality stuff, because I've been there and done that, and no one cares.

What I am going to say is, to all of you that talk about 'a woman's body, a woman's choice', do you honestly believe that a woman with so little respect for her own body that she has a SECOND, and then a THIRD, unwanted pregnancy has any moral right to retain that ability? I would like to hear from all the 'I support abortion on demand as after-the-fact contraception' people: Tell me why women who apply for a second abortion should not have a 'bonus' hysterectomy thrown in to save them the bother of a third?

 

[cgannon64]

This is true but you can also be 100% certain that the wisest person in the world, if such an abstract entity exists, is not 16 or even 20 or 30.

And I will go on the record as saying that I am not the wisest person in the world.

We can all try to empathise but the less overlap in experience the less able you are to do it.

Perhaps, but I still disagree that I cannot empathize with a pregnant woman because I am a young male.

Look I am often amazed by the intellect relative to age of many people here, including you. However, it really irks me when people start ridiculing people who have made the difficult decision to have an abortion. While you may me quite smart if you are like most people your opinions and values will change between now and when you are 40. Whether it is wisdom or simply an ability to see more complexity in situations because of a greater appreciation of the vagaries of life, it will happen. I have found myself ridiculing things at one age which I went on to do myself at another. Live and learn, it’s hard to believe but it is true.

You have tried to rephrase your condescension, but it is still there. You remind me of an English teacher I had who asked me to revisit an argument we had had after I graduated from college.

CGannon64, I don't see how you can be against abortion if you're saying things like this:

As I said in that post, there is a great difference between defending murder, and arguing for indifference towards death. Ideally, if I had true faith in God, I would not care if I die - in no way does that constitute me endorsing the killing of others who may not share my same indifference.

Even if I allow that a separate organism is created at conception (which I don't), you still have made the jump from there to 'the killing of this person',

Why don't you allow that an embryo is a seperate organism? And secondly, the jump is clear - Keirador considers a seperate organism with human genes to be a "person".

Please don't use the term 'potential human' to me, as others have aluded to this is not relevant. A lump of stone is a potential automobile, and every day is potentially my last. I put as much stock in potentiallity as I do in free will. They are intellectual concepts that are worth pondering but mean nothing in the real world.

The argument is not that potential human = human, but that killing a potential human is effectively preventing a human from existance. (I would argue that an embryo is a "potential human" in a direct sense while a sperm is one in a very indirect sense because an embryo, giving the normal course of events, will become a fully working human, while a sperm will remain a sperm.)

Wrong, dangerously wrong... where do you get this stuff? Is someone trying to rationalize something perhaps? How human.

Rationalize what exactly? Anyway, apparently what I heard was misinformation, but it wasn't entirely untrue. Wiki says birth control pills "work primarily by preventing ovulation, but it also makes the uterus less likely to accept implantation of an embryo if one is created. The synthetic hormones thicken the mucus in the cervix making it more difficult for sperm to reach any egg." If the first two methods fail, which is possible, then it would effectively abort an embryo.