Why would anyone support the practice of abortion?

[The Last Conformist]

Of course we can. We could probably find someone on this board. But I doubt we'll ever find very many people who think this way, because the notion is patently ridiculous. I mean, what happens if I lock my door, but you break a window or climb down the chimney? Can I still throw you out?

In case it's not obvious, I'm arguing in bad faith. Much as I hate the term, I'm "pro-choice" - I think abortions during early pregnancy should be allowed.

(Late pregnancy abortions should be a non-issue, since with modern technology a foetus can survive outside the womb from about the 24th week. I'm sure someone is gonna bring up an instance when it nonetheless becomes one.)

Americans are very attached to their property rights. So I find it helpful to rephrase the abortion conflict in those terms. This argument might not hold so well in Europe, where people are much more comfortable with the government using private property to facilitate public good.

How did America go about building it's railway net? Over here, they expropriated plenty of land for it. Was there so much open space it wasn't necessary there?

(Recently, they've allowed mobile operators to build masts against the wishes of the land-owners in some instances. This provided me with the inspiration for the expropriation solution, actually.)

 

[The Last Conformist]

Because it's a difference of nature.
In one case, you force someone to lend his property.
in another case, you violate the integrity of his body.

That's as much difference as between taxes and rape. Quite a big one, in fact.

Assuming we hold rape to be worse than taxes (and I'd hope even our libertarian friends agree!), it actually doesn't defeat his argument - if his property rights are sacred enough that he can let me die in that scenario, the woman, having an even holier right to her body, is necessarily justified in aborting the foetus (or embryo, or zygote).

Unless you want to argue that I have less right to life than a zygote/embryo/foetus.

 

[Little Raven]

In case it's not obvious, I'm arguing in bad faith. Much as I hate the term, I'm "pro-choice" - I think abortions during early pregnancy should be allowed.

Umm..yeah, it was pretty obvious. I appreciate the effort, though!

How did America go about building it's railway net? Over here, they expropriated plenty of land for it. Was there so much open space it wasn't necessary there?

I'm sure we did seize land, although back in those days, there was a lot of open space. And we continue to seize land today, for roads, for corporations, for urban renewal. The government has all sorts of tools at its disposal to gain control of land it needs. I'm sure IglooDude could give you a list, since it annoys libertarians to no end. But the concept of the government being able to arbitrarily take things from you still rankles most Americans.

 

[Akka]

Assuming we hold rape to be worse than taxes (and I'd hope even our libertarian friends agree!), it actually doesn't defeat his argument - if his property rights are sacred enough that he can let me die in that scenario, the woman, having an even holier right to her body, is necessarily justified in aborting the foetus (or embryo, or zygote).

Unless you want to argue that I have less right to life than a zygote/embryo/foetus.

Of course. You're evil. You deserve to die

Seriously, the problem is that his example is so off-the-mark, that it defeats any idea of parallelism.
You can have completely crossed opinions on this one. They simple don't deal with the same concepts. As such, they can't be compared. Apple and oranges and this stuff.

 

[Little Raven]

Assuming we hold rape to be worse than taxes (and I'd hope even our libertarian friends agree!), it actually doesn't defeat his argument - if his property rights are sacred enough that he can let me die in that scenario, the woman, having an even holier right to her body, is necessarily justified in aborting the foetus (or embryo, or zygote).

Thank you, TLC. Though one clarification is necessary. The woman is justified in removing the fetus from her womb. It's arguable that she does not have the right to kill the fetus outright, but she certainly has the right to boot the sucker out, even if death is the inevitable result.

 

[Little Raven]

They simple don't deal with the same concepts. As such, they can't be compared. Apple and oranges and this stuff.

I really don't follow this, Akka. How are the concepts different?

In the example, I own the machine. In real life, the woman owns her womb. In both cases, there is another person (either TLC, or the fetus) that requires the use of another's property in order to live.

Can you clarify how these are two totally different concepts?

 

[Akka]

I really don't follow this, Akka. How are the concepts different?

In the example, I own the machine. In real life, the woman owns her womb. In both cases, there is another person (either TLC, or the fetus) that requires the use of another's property in order to live.

Can you clarify how these are two totally different concepts?

In one case, it's property, in other case, it's oneself.
Seems pretty OBVIOUS to me.
You're asking me what's the difference between destroying a table and killing someone, or between stealing and raping. If you really see no difference between stealing/destroying and raping/murdering, I advise you to see your doctor. If you see one, then why do you ask me to give an answer you already know ?

 

[Little Raven]

In one case, it's property, in other case, it's oneself.
Seems pretty OBVIOUS to me.

I appreciate that, Akka, but remember that you're dealing with an American here. Dumb it down for me.

You're asking me what's the difference between destroying a table and killing someone, or between stealing and raping.

No, I'm not. I'm asking you why one is a crime and one isn't. In my mind, they're both crimes. One is more serious than the other, but they are both crimes.

You seem to be arguing that one is a crime and one is not. I don't understand this. You say that it is possible to have completely different stances on the two situations I list in my argument. Can you break down how you feel about each situation and why?

 

[Mise]

Aren't you guys all on the same side? Why are you arguing against each other!

Late pregnancy abortions should be a non-issue, since with modern technology a foetus can survive outside the womb from about the 24th week.

It's more like 20 weeks now. Quite phenomenal medical science...

 

[Akka]

I appreciate that, Akka, but remember that you're dealing with an American here. Dumb it down for me.

Why have I this feeling you're just pretending being dumb and pretending you don't understand, only to see what reasons I could give ?

No, I'm not. I'm asking you why one is a crime and one isn't. In my mind, they're both crimes. One is more serious than the other, but they are both crimes.

Ask yourself why killing someone is a crime, while breaking a window is not.

 

[The Last Conformist]

Aren't you guys all on the same side? Why are you arguing against each other!

We just like arguing, I'm afraid.

 

[Little Raven]

Why have I this feeling you're just pretending being dumb and pretending you don't understand, only to see what reasons I could give ?

I don't know. The internet is an imperfect medium at the best of times, so I can only assume that is what's happening here.

Allow me to assure you that I am not playing dumb. I'm not above playing dumb, but that's not what's going on right now. I honestly do not understand your argument. And I don't think I'm the only one. (TLC? Can you explain his position to me?) Akka, can you explicitly lay out how you feel about each of the two situations in the argument I gave? Once you do, I should be able to figure out why you see the two as dealing with two difference concepts.

Ask yourself why killing someone is a crime, while breaking a window is not.

Breaking a window isn't a crime? I have a feeling I will quickly discover otherwise if I launch a campaign to liberate people from the confinement of their windows.

Breaking a window is not as serious as killing someone, but at least here in the US, it is a crime.

 

[Desmond Hawkins]

I have a right to say a women can't kill. Most abortions are done for convienence. Life overrules convienence.

It is not a human that is being killed.

I am personally responsible for the premature death of BILLIONS of sperm, yet no one complains about the fact that each one of those could have been half of a human being.

 

[zjl56]

If many of the women who got abortions just kept the fetus and let it live they could of just given it away. Life no matter how bad is better then no life.

 

[Desmond Hawkins]

It isn't yet a human being, so it is not murder. It is a fetus, or in most cases, still a small bundle of cells. Calling something a human when it isn't does not make it a human.

And really, abortion, along with contraception has probably prevented billions of more people from being born, in a manner which stops them before they are anything close to a human being. It has been a miracle for the overpopulated world.

 

[IglooDame]

It is not a human that is being killed.

I am personally responsible for the premature death of BILLIONS of sperm, yet no one complains about the fact that each one of those could have been half of a human being.

*as the Monty Python song "Every sperm is sacred" leaks into Igloodude's consciousness*

Let's be realistic, though - the average ratio is one egg to how many sperm? At best, there could only be thousands, not billions of humans missing as a result of your spermicide.

 

[Desmond Hawkins]

Ya, but each sperm is a potential different human, when put into combinations with each egg.

So actually we would have to set up a combination equation to see how many combinations of egg/sperm I have killed before they have a chance to live.

Wow, my murders run up into the trillions. If not many more.

 

[luiz]

How can anyone believe they do?

How?

How not?

The core of the non-sustainability argument is that there are resources that we, above some population number, use up faster than they get replaced. That we've not seen a collapse yet means that either we're still below that level, or we're above, but have not yet worked thru the pre-existing buffer.

Look at oil - by any estimate we're using it up much faster than it is replaced, but at current consumption, it will last for decades, possibly centuries yet. Your argument pretty much adds up to that since the oil fields have not run dry yet, they never will.

That's not the real core of the non-sustainability argument. All of those doomsayers have a very distinctive political agenda, but I'll leave that to another debate.

My argument rests on the fact that we are not depleting even a fraction of the essential resources, the ones neede to support life. Oil is not among those(and by the way if doomsayers were right there would be no oil today).

The ammount of oxygen in the world can support hundreds of times more people. With de-salting(if that's a word) technology we could have access to an endless source of water. Solar energy, if properly applied, could provide electricity for billions of years. The soil could grow many times more food then it currently does, and plenty of rich lands are still empty. Tell me, what exactly is depleated?

 

[IglooDame]

That's not the real core of the non-sustainability argument. All of those doomsayers have a very distinctive political agenda, but I'll leave that to another debate.

My argument rests on the fact that we are not depleting even a fraction of the essential resources, the ones neede to support life. Oil is not among those(and by the way if doomsayers were right there would be no oil today).

The ammount of oxygen in the world can support hundreds of times more people. With de-salting(if that's a word) technology we could have access to an endless source of water. Solar energy, if properly applied, could provide electricity for billions of years. The soil could grow many times more food then it currently does, and plenty of rich lands are still empty. Tell me, what exactly is depleated?

Desalinization, and the technology is already very much in use.

 

[Desmond Hawkins]

Actually once I think about it, every single time a woman refuses sex, she is destroying the possibility of life for a potential baby.

I wonder if that line will work on women in my area.