Why would anyone support the practice of abortion?

[FearlessLeader2]

Exactly. The woman must have the legal right to abort, because the implications otherwise simply cannot be tolerated.

Horse-puckey. Don't try selling that hogwash here, my pigs prefer the mud they roll in. Property rights versus the right to life? Let me get this straight, you QUESTION the existance of a right to life, but PROPERTY rights are to be held sacrosanct?! THAT is your defense? Do you even comprehend the hypocrisy inherent in that position?

But that doesn't make the abortion any more palatable, or free the woman from her moral obligations. I must retain the right to refuse TLC the use of my machine, or the concept of property rights flies out the window. But personally, I could never forgive anyone who let TLC die because they didn't want to share their machine.

It's the difference between being a bastard, and being a criminal.

If you ask me, it's a non-existent difference, bad is bad.

 

[Little Raven]

Fearless! So nice to have you back. Without your charming company this thread was beginning to lose some of its flavor.

I don't have to convince anyone of that that I consider worth the time to have a discussion with.

Oh my. You must not talk to very many people. Tell me, do you consider this jury worth the time to have a discussion with? After all, they allowed four police officers to shoot an innocent man on the street and walk away free. Wasn’t Mr. Diallo human? Didn’t he have a right to life? Because if he did, and if every legal system on earth (including ours, I presume) supports this right, why did the jury acquit the four police officers?

There is no legal system on earth that is not based wholly or in part on the concept of a human right to life; so as long as you live within such a system, your beliefs are secondary to the base assumptions of that system.

I dispute the first part, but I’ll wait to see how you answer the case of Mr. Diallo. As for the second…are you sure about that? Because if that is true, then aren’t your beliefs secondary to the assumptions of our system? For instance, the assumption that abortion is a legal right as established by Roe vs. Wade?

There is a right to life, and children (and you already agreed with me that embreyos et al count as such) have a right to the things they need to live. You said your STATE cut its CHIP program, that means it is in the USA.

*chuckle* Yes, last time I checked, Texas was in the USA. Grudgingly, I admit, but still there. But just because you say “there is a right to life” over and over doesn’t make it so. Our system allows people to die every day. We actively kill people every day. Texas has fried 12 this year alone, and we’re just getting started. If our system is really built around a ‘right to life,’ why are we gunning down hundreds in Najaf? Why do we allow our police officers to engage with lethal force whenever they so much as suspect they may be in danger?

Could it be that our system does not value life as much as you seem to think it does?

No hospital in the US can turn a patient with a life-threatening condition away based on ability to pay, not one.

Depends. Hospitals have to provide emergency care, but hospitals do not have to provide indefinite care. If you come in requiring an emergency appendectomy, the hospital cannot turn you away. However, if you are in a coma with no ability to pay, the hospital does not have to artificially support your life indefinitely. Which would seem to run counter to your assumption that ‘people have the right to everything they need to live.’ Or do people in comas not count?

If it happens and hospitals get away with it, it's only because people are believing that myth and noone is pressing charges against the parents for not getting help because they don't want to expose that myth and face the costs.

Or it could be because there is no basic assumption that people have a right to everything they need to live in our system. Given how many lawyers there are looking for work, which case do you think is more likely?

They are children. They have a right to the things they need to live. They have a right to life. The answer to my question is clear:

No, what’s clear is that you like to pick a phrase and repeat it over and over. I’m quite willing to be convinced that what you say is true. But you’re going to have to start offering evidence, not just repeating a catch phrase over and over. If I want that, I’ll tune into some political ads. I’m confident you can do better.

 

[Little Raven]

Property rights versus the right to life? Let me get this straight, you QUESTION the existance of a right to life, but PROPERTY rights are to be held sacrosanct?! THAT is your defense? Do you even comprehend the hypocrisy inherent in that position?

Please, show me the hypocrisy. I have made it clear I don't believe our system pays anything more than lip service to the 'right to life.' But I believe that property rights are it's very core. Where is the inherent hypocrisy? You may believe it to be an immoral stance, but it isn't a hypocritical one. Where am I professing a belief then acting in opposition to it?

If you ask me, it's a non-existent difference, bad is bad.

Then you are doomed to wander the earth a very unhappy man, my friend. Our legal system is constructed to insure the stability of society, and is interested in morality only so far as it furthers that primary goal.

 

[ainwood]

As far as the supposed higher value I place on a foetus, frankly, I'm not even sure where you're coming from with that.

Its quite simple: Why should I have any problem with aborting a foetus when nature has no problem with it.

 

[FearlessLeader2]

Fearless! So nice to have you back. Without your charming company this thread was beginning to lose some of its flavor. Oh my. You must not talk to very many people. Tell me, do you consider this jury worth the time to have a discussion with? After all, they allowed four police officers to shoot an innocent man on the street and walk away free. Wasn’t Mr. Diallo human? Didn’t he have a right to life? Because if he did, and if every legal system on earth (including ours, I presume) supports this right, why did the jury acquit the four police officers?

The re-configured jury consisted of four black women, one white woman and seven white men.

Do you think OJ was innocent, or that a mostly black jury decided that one of their own was getting off scott free? I think four black women were intimidated enough by 8 white people that they did what they were told. I'd also point out that a 2nd degree murder charge was not a smart move, when a lesser charge could have succeeded. Diallo was in the wrong place at the wrong time, and did the wrong things. All of this is speculation, I wasn't there, neither were you I'd bet. For all we know, those four cops gunned him down for nothing more than being too black in a white neighborhood. The fact that they got away with it, if that is true, says nothing more about our legal system than that it is not perfect. Doesn't mean we can't try to improve it when the opportunities arise.

I dispute the first part, but I’ll wait to see how you answer the case of Mr. Diallo. As for the second…are you sure about that? Because if that is true, then aren’t your beliefs secondary to the assumptions of our system? For instance, the assumption that abortion is a legal right as established by Roe vs. Wade?

Roe vs. Wade is not an 'assumption' of our legal system. It is a legal precendent, IE 'legislation from the bench', that is used in lieu of law.

*chuckle* Yes, last time I checked, Texas was in the USA. Grudgingly, I admit, but still there. But just because you say “there is a right to life” over and over doesn’t make it so. Our system allows people to die every day. We actively kill people every day. Texas has fried 12 this year alone, and we’re just getting started. If our system is really built around a ‘right to life,’ why are we gunning down hundreds in Najaf? Why do we allow our police officers to engage with lethal force whenever they so much as suspect they may be in danger?

Could it be that our system does not value life as much as you seem to think it does?

The Declaration of Independence contains the phrase "...the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Thomas Jefferson wrote those words, and was the prime mover in framing both the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Somehow I think the US system is at least partially based on a right to life by humans. There stands my evidence in support of that belief.

Depends. Hospitals have to provide emergency care, but hospitals do not have to provide indefinite care. If you come in requiring an emergency appendectomy, the hospital cannot turn you away. However, if you are in a coma with no ability to pay, the hospital does not have to artificially support your life indefinitely.

IIRC, in such a circumstance, one becomes a ward of the state unless a health care proxy exists. The state or proxy then makes relevant decisions. Either way, cost does not directly affect the outcome. The hospital cannot make the decision to terminate care, only the state or proxy.

No, what’s clear is that you like to pick a phrase and repeat it over and over. I’m quite willing to be convinced that what you say is true. But you’re going to have to start offering evidence, not just repeating a catch phrase over and over. If I want that, I’ll tune into some political ads. I’m confident you can do better.

I hope the above qualifies as 'better'.

 

[FearlessLeader2]

Its quite simple: Why should I have any problem with aborting a foetus when nature has no problem with it.

For the same reason that you take aspirin for headaches, penecillin for infections, and ride in an ambulance to the hospital after an accident: because your life is worth enough to you to protect and extend it as long as it is feasible and worthwhile to you to do so. Pre-natal humans have 65-75 years of joy and sorrow ahead of them, why shouldn't they live?

 

[FearlessLeader2]

Then you are doomed to wander the earth a very unhappy man, my friend. Our legal system is constructed to insure the stability of society, and is interested in morality only so far as it furthers that primary goal.

And you are comfortable with an immoral legal system?

 

[FearlessLeader2]

Two words : Rape cases.....

1 ugly statistic: 98.5% of abortions are done as after-the-fact contraception.

Those are the abortions I want outlawed.

 

[The Last Conformist]

I've never really got my head around that one; "contraceptive" abortions are wrong on account of being murder. Nonetheless, where the mother have been raped, it's suddenly OK to abort. How does the rapee gain the right to walk away with murder? We do not allow a rape victim to kill the rapist except in desperate self-defense - if she sought him out the next day and put a bullet thru his head, she is charged for murder or manslaughter.

I'm still waiting for FL2's explanation why age-based discrimination is a priori unacceptable when it comes to life-and-death, but not in other circumstances.

As for the question in his signatures, well, where I come from, a person in a permanent coma can have the plug pulled - effectively killing him or her - at the say-so of his or her relatives, or, in the abscence of relatives, of a state official. I'm not certain how comparing foetuses to people who can be terminated at will constitutes an anti-abortion argument.

 

[IglooDame]

Nice try, but I am adamantly opposed to it.

About a year ago now I publicly declared that I could not support the DP with all its flaws and be pro-life, and made the switch. That's makes my open mind a matter of public record here, as I am the only person to date to ever have his mind changed by one of these debates. I gave up my hypocrisy, when will you give up yours?

I don't think you are the only person to ever have his mind changed by one of these debates; offhand I can think of two others. Beware certainty, it is an unfaithful and easily-lost ally. (That almost sounds worthy of the Tick, eh?)

 

[Mise]

@FearlessLeader2:
I don't know if you missed my post, or just ignored it cos it was stupid, but here it goes again:

Tell me, what is the difference between a 'human fetus' and a 'human being' that gives one the right to live, and denies it to the other?

You are correct. A "human fetus" and a "human being" are not different, in that both the "fetus" and the "being" belong to the "human". Thus, the "human" has a right to do what she wants with both the "being", and the "fetus".

 

[Vanadorn]

Am I the only person on these forums with an open mind?

A person has an open mind, not because he says so, but becuase others around him notice it to be fact. There have been 10 pages of you staunchly defending your position, a position you are free to have because you are entitled to it due to your ability of free will.

It is the same reason why your fellow debaters are entitled to theirs. You will not convince others, who have already wrestled with this subject on their own, to change their mind, the same way that we will be unable to do the same to you.

The more you protest, the more you drive a "fundamental" wedge between yourself and the open mind you are so willing to talk about. You are obviously a male, and in your 30's at this point in life. It might be hard to remember your teen and early 20 years, but maybe if you did, and knew some people who had seriously made a number of horrible sexual mistakes, you might not be as adament with your non-open minded position.

It is easy to preach a point when you are sitting beyond those who are still mired in the situation. This is the real world, and as the real world, there are imperfect choices and solutions to all of life's problems - including the generation of life. Yelling to answer the question, when it has been answered many many many times in this thread and others, with different tacks, points, and views, all lead back to what has happened before and will again - there are areas that some people will not face head on and confront in regards to their beliefs and will instead pick apart the arguments presented to find what little flaws are there and declare the entire rebuttal null and void. Forbid the fact if it is done back to them and their postion.

The more you preach - the more you should think of the morality imposed on others thread - and how you are falling and failing at it. This is a moral decision - not murder. You are entitled to think of it as such, but do not deny the "right to think about it" from others.

My 2 cents

 

[IglooDame]

And you are comfortable with an immoral legal system?

Immoral, no. Amoral, yes.

 

[Sweeney Todd]

Immoral, no. Amoral, yes.

What about Asexual?

 

[IglooDame]

This does appear to be a valid difference between the two demographics, and I congratulate you on finding it.

Thank you. Your oft-posed question did inspire me to give some serious thought to this issue, as did TLC's and Little Raven's discussion.

However, it still leaves you with a dillemna. Bear in mind that we are not discussing 100% of abortion cases, only the 98.5% that are contraceptive after the fact. The only way to accomodate the mother's wishes in these matters is by killing the child within. Given that the only difference you have established between the unborn and any other type of dependant is the level of dependancy, is it morally justifiable to accommodate the mother's non-life-threatening wishes by killing the unborn child?

Originally Posted by IglooDude
As such, I believe a human fetus can reasonably under existing law be treated as a part of the woman's body until it exits said body.

(Normal circumstances refer to a pregnant mother who has medical assistance reasonably available to her, adequate living standards, and is intelligent enough to understand that her actions affect the fetus she carries.)

I disagree. The placental barrier and basic biology do too. Any failure of the placental barrier will result in war between the organisms on either side, with the baby being treated as a foreign organism by the mother's immune system. This is well-documental medical fact, so my disagreement has something backing it besides my personal convictions. What backs your belief other than the dependancy described above?

Either the fetus is treated as a part of the mother's body, in which case she has the right to deal with it in any way she wishes, or it is a de facto intruder, in which case I side with Little Raven - she should not be obligated by law (but IS obligated by the bounds of ethical behavior) to host the foreign organism. I lean toward the former, though, because I generally disagree with your comparison between fetuses and various groups of humans. We don't take away "human being" status from specific individuals that are brain-dead or comatose any more than we legally confer "human being" status upon unusually-smart orangutans.

Someone earlier brought up the excellent point of naming sand - there is no consistent way to determine when a bunch of cells transforms into a human being. I think that either the cutting of the umbilical cord or the fetus' exit of the womb make the best candidates for legal purposes, and conveniently they're relatively close to each other timing-wise.

 

[Benderino]

Nice try, but I am adamantly opposed to it.

About a year ago now I publicly declared that I could not support the DP with all its flaws and be pro-life, and made the switch. That's makes my open mind a matter of public record here, as I am the only person to date to ever have his mind changed by one of these debates. I gave up my hypocrisy, when will you give up yours?

That's very good, at least we agree on one issue

My opinions have changed many times from these debates...I don't think you are alone in this respect. What hyppocrisy do I have? That I support a woman's life over a blob of goo?

A majority of pro-lifers are also chauvinist pigs who feel that the female of the family should be subordinated to the male. The husband makes the decisions, and it's all traced back to biblical traditions. I'm sure that's not you, but I'm just describing those that fight on your side.

 

[ainwood]

Tell me, what is the difference between a 'human fetus' and a 'human being' that gives one the right to live, and denies it to the other?

This is not really phrased as an open question, because the issue has nothing to do with 'right to live', it has everything about 'right to choose'. And the answer is 'slef awareness'.

Show how this difference means more when a 'human fetus' displays it than when an aged, injured, or very young 'human being' displays it.

A foetus is not self-aware; aged, injured or very young 'human beings' are.

Explain why your assertion is not the same as age-based discrimination.

See above.

Explain why this difference which may be permanent in a 'human being', but which is certain to be temporary for a 'human fetus', can be used to legitimately discriminate against the 'human fetus', but the 'human being', even if permanently afflicted with the difference (say a permenently vegetative coma) still has full human rights.

Well, a foetus is not self-aware, and will not become temporarily self-aware, so this question is a bit moot.

However, the logical extension is 'why then should a person in a vegetative coma have the right to live'? Well, up until 30 or 40 years ago, the person in the vegetative coma probably wouldn't live - it is only machines and modern health care that do keep them alive. Just because we can keep them alive does not necessarily mean that we should - I wouldn't want to be kept alive in a permanent vegetative coma, if I was still self-aware, and certianly not if I wasn't. Would you argue that this is not my choice to make, and I should be kept alive regardless?

Maybe in the future, medical care will improve to the point where a foetus can be taken out of the womb and kept alive and grown on machines too. Would this be acceptable?

 

[shadowdude]

If I were to be sediated for surgery, would I no longer be a person then?

When I am sleeping and I am unconscious am I no longer a person?

 

[Benderino]

Except you've had the advantage of at one time being conscious...something that an unborn blob of goo doesn't have.

 

[FearlessLeader2]

Barring miscarriage by misadventure, disease, or genetic failure, is there any doubt in anyone's mind that an unmolested embreyo will eventually be born, grow up, and acquire all of the cosmetic factors that folks have been bandying about as if they somehow stood between man and embreyo?

Of course not. Therefore all discussions of sentience, self-awareness, sensation, etc... are nothing more than age-based discrimination. An older embreyo, a born baby, will have or readily acquire all these things.

The only difference, therefore, between an embreyo and an adult, is age.

To answer the question of whether age-based discrimination is wrong, I will speak to motive.

Two situations: abortion as contraception, and a 21 year age limit on entry into a nightclub that serves alcohol (both in the US).

The 21 year age limit on entry exists to protect young adults from predation by older adults who might prey on them while intoxicated and incapable of making informed decisions. After 21, it is hoped that sufficient experience has been gained that a 21 year old will have the good sense to avoid such situations.

Abortion as contraception exists to make an immoral lifestyle consequence-free for those who choose to pursue it. Prostitutes especially make frequent use of the service, racking up body counts as high as 5 or 6 in a carreer.

Repeat Abortion Rate Approaches 50%
The repeat abortion rate in the U.S. has risen rapidly since Roe v. Wade was decided in 1973. In 1973 it was estimated that only about 12% of the induced abortions were repeat abortions. By 1979 the national repeat rate had risen to 29.4% and by 1983 it had reached 38.8%. In 1987 the Alan Guttmacher Institute took a survey of 9480 women at approximately 100 abortion clinics throughout the U.S. and found that 42.9% of the women said they were having repeat abortions. 26.9% were having a second abortion; 10.7% were having a third abortion; and 5.3% were having a fourth abortion or more. (Henshaw 1987, 1988)

Based upon these figures and also extrapolating the fourth abortion or more category to more precise figures based upon state health department reports of repeat abortions, it is estimated that there were about 643,500 repeat abortions in the U.S. in 1987 out of a total of 1.5 million abortions. Of these 403,500 women had a second abortion; 160,500 had a third abortion; 53,250 had a fourth abortion; 17,500 had a fifth abortion; 4400 had a sixth abortion and 4400 had a seventh or higher abortion. http://www.lifeissues.net/writers/air/air_vol2no3_1989.html

If abortion is such a serious decision, why is it becoming an easier and easier one?