Abortion??? anyone??

[Lilly Marlene]

Just lurking before turning this thing off and I'm stunned to find there is something upon which palerider and I do agree !

Not to get too involved in my present impaired state, but just wanted to reply to inbadfaith's question...

Btw, has anyone read the bit in Freakonomics, about the impact Roe v. Wade has had on the crime rate?

Yes (the notorious Chapter Four). The case made in Freako has been dismantled handily by two separate authors: Malcolm Gladwell and Steve Sailer.

Happy Monday everyone,
Lilly

 

[palerider]

I don't think that the person meant religion, but rather, they meant ethics. Hume did not believe in an absolute right or wrong, rather, it is an emotive matter. Personally, I believe that ethics is a societal construction and inculcation, but that is another issue. Abortion is an ethical issue, and thus many people rely on their emotional intuition... and may fail to acknowledge exceptional cases and the impact that a state ban on abortion would have.

Since we (as a society) don't accept that it is moral or ethical to kill other human beings because they might cause us some inconvenience, there exists a disconnect between what we claim is ethical and what we accept as ethical. Unless, of course, you can demonstrate in some real way that an unborn is somehow less human, and therefore less deserving of the protection of the law than you or I.

People who are entirely pro-life seem to believe that killing is wrong under most circumstances (with the exception of having the child being a threat to the mother), even in the case of rape or incest. I am entirely against this. If a woman is raped by several men in a terrifying experience, I don't understand why she must live with the experience growing in her belly for nine more months so that she can give it up for adoption. It just isn't right, it is like condemning her for having female organs.

Killing in the case of rape or incest. Hmmmm. Tell me, is it your contention that we should be allowed to kill anyone who brings up painfull or unpleasant memories? Or just those who are completely defenseless? We all live with the memories of bad experiences, some worse than others and many far worse than rape and yet, killing those who might cause us to remember or relive those events is not a viable option for us.

Further. Exactly what is the child guilty of that its life should be forfiet? I agree that someone should be punished, but doesn't exacting justice on the perpetrator make more sense than killing an innocent?

I understand that the example I have given is a grotesque and less likely situation... but I believe it should be the woman's choice. I do not condone the use of abortion as a contraceptive form, but I think banning abortion entirely would only make those who actually need the abortion suffer miserably.

The only ones who "need" an abortion are those whose lives, or long term health are threatened by trying to carry a pregnancy to term. We are, after all, allowed to kill in self defense even if the one threatening our life is doing so unintentionally. Abortion for reason other than to save the life, or long term health of the mother is for no better reason than convenience.

And even if a woman was able to give the baby up for adoption, how about the children who are not adopted? I don't think it is fair to abandon hardship and responsibility, only to transfer it to a child you will never have to face.

You favor killing those who "might" live unhappy lives? Do you also favor killing those who "might" grow up to be criminals because of the circumstance of their birth" What other sorts of people do you favor killing very early in their lives because of what they might grow up to be or do?

If we want to decrease the number of unwanted pregnancies, and thus abortions, we should increase education and awareness (in both men and women) and availability of local clinics with access to contraceptives.

We have increased the availibility of contraceptives to everyone. There isn't a person in this country that doesn't have access to free contraceptives. Sex isn't an issue that can be addressed by making pills and condoms more easily available (which we probably couldn't do anyway at this point). Like it or not, sex, and its consequences are personal responsibility issues.

Btw, has anyone read the bit in Freakonomics, about the impact Roe v. Wade has had on the crime rate?

Yeah. It has been thoroughly debunked.

 

[Kiyomori]

I think this debate is a personal one. It's the Mothers choice. You shouldn't be able to force a woman to carry a pregnancy all the way until birth if she doesn't wish to. The most humanitarian thing to do, in my opinion, is to make abortion available, so it is a safe option. If you don't do that you have people desperate not to have a child going to extreme and potentially dangerous measures to abort. In the meantime make sure women who feel they want an abortion or completely aware of what they are choosing to do so they can make a well informed decision.

 

[palerider]

I think this debate is a personal one. It's the Mothers choice. You shouldn't be able to force a woman to carry a pregnancy all the way until birth if she doesn't wish to. The most humanitarian thing to do, in my opinion, is to make abortion available, so it is a safe option. If you don't do that you have people desperate not to have a child going to extreme and potentially dangerous measures to abort.

Do you subscribe to the idea that when one human being decides to kill another that it should always be a personal decision and is no one's business but the one who has decided to kill?

I don't believe that a woman should be forced into a pregnancy, but once she is, there is another life at stake and no one in this country is supposed to have to forfiet his or her life without due process of the law.

In the meantime make sure women who feel they want an abortion or completely aware of what they are choosing to do so they can make a well informed decision.

Tell me, do you also suggest that we make other killers completely aware of what they are choosing to do, but if they say that their decision to kill is a well informed one, then we should leave the decision to them?

If you can demonstrate in some real way that an unborn is not exactly as human as you, and therefore entitled to the same protections of the law that you enjoy by virtue of nothing more than the fact that you are a human being, you will have an argument. Short of that, however, you are arguing that you believe women shoud have the right to kill innocent human beings for no better reason than convenience.

 

[Kiyomori]

An unborn foetus is a potential person not an actual one. If there was no Mother to carry it the foetus could not survive, therefore the relationship is symbiotic. Therefore I believe it is the Mothers choice wether or not to support the symbiosis up until the point where it is possible for the child to survive outside of the womb. The Mother is going to be responsible for the childs future, if they are not ready to look after a child it's their right not to have one.

The comparison you make is utterly ridiculous. I'm interested to see how far you're ready to take it though. What about the unfertilised eggs that get discarded in ovulation? Should we dedicate ourselves to protecting those potential unborns? How about when guys masturbate? Should they be sent to prison if they do not save their semen for potential fertilisation? Surely that's thousands of innocent human beings they're wiping off their hands and onto a tissue.

At which point do we declare them innocent human beings? Is a woman who miscarries a couple of weeks into her pregnancy guilty of manslaughter because her body has rejected the foetus as a matter of bioligical inconvenience?

Ofcourse I'm not arguing for a right to murder, this is a completely different issue.

 

[palerider]

An unborn foetus is a potential person not an actual one. If there was no Mother to carry it the foetus could not survive, therefore the relationship is symbiotic. Therefore I believe it is the Mothers choice wether or not to support the symbiosis up until the point where it is possible for the child to survive outside of the womb. The Mother is going to be responsible for the childs future, if they are not ready to look after a child it's their right not to have one.

I am afraid that you are wrong there. Whether it is deliberate, or not I won't guess, but you are wrong. Have you ever referred to a legal dictionary to see what constitutes a "person" in the eyes of the law? I have. And I have checked most of them. They all say basically the same thing.

http://dictionary.law.com/

n. 1) a human being. 2) a corporation treated as having the rights and obligations of a person. Counties and cities can be treated as a person in the same manner as a corporation. However, corporations, counties and cities cannot have the emotions of humans such as malice, and therefore are not liable for punitive damages unless there is a statute authorizing the award of punitive damages.

http://dictionary.lp.findlaw.com/

1: "natural person" 2: the body of a human being

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/

n. 1) a human being. 2) a corporation treated as having the rights and obligations of a person.

There are others, but to continue is just redundant.

Also, the relationship between an unborn and its mother is not symbiotic in nature. A symbiotic relationship, by definition, requires that the symbionts be two dissimilar organisms. A mother and her child are not dissimilar organizms.

And don't try to claim that the unborn is a parasite either because you would be wrong there as well.

Also, the law allows a woman to give the child up so she is not responsible for its future.

The comparison you make is utterly ridiculous. I'm interested to see how far you're ready to take it though. What about the unfertilised eggs that get discarded in ovulation? Should we dedicate ourselves to protecting those potential unborns?

Unfertilized eggs are eggs. By themselves, the are of no more consequence than a fingernail clipping. Ditto for sperm cells. Because of their unique nature, they do represent potential life, but that is all. Once they get together, however, their potential is realized. After fertilization is complete, neither sperm nor egg exist as such. In their place is a new human being.

How about when guys masturbate? Should they be sent to prison if they do not save their semen for potential fertilisation? Surely that's thousands of innocent human beings they're wiping off their hands and onto a tissue.

As I have pointed out, a sperm cell by itself is just a cell. Of no more consequence than any other cell. There is a vast difference between a potential fertilization and a fertilization. A potential fertilization is imaginary while an actual fertilization is not.

At which point do we declare them innocent human beings?

At the point in which they display the characteristics of life. Should I define life for you as well? Life is the condition that distinguishes organisms from inorganic objects and dead organisms, it is manifested by growth through metabolism, reproduction, and the power of adaptation to environment through changes originating internally. From the time fertilization is complete, the unborn is alive and since they can be nothing but a human, and they have done nothing to anyone, from that point they are innocent human beings. They don't lose their innocence until after they are born.

Is a woman who miscarries a couple of weeks into her pregnancy guilty of manslaughter because her body has rejected the foetus as a matter of bioligical inconvenience?

Now here is a rediculous suggestion. When a woman miscarries, it is because the unborn has died or is unable to live. It is a natural death. Do you believe someone should be charged when an adult dies of a heart attack or a stroke? Natural death is natural death.

Ofcourse I'm not arguing for a right to murder, this is a completely different issue.

Since we are talking about one human being contracting another human being to kill a third human being, how is it a different issue?

 

[inbadfaith]

An unborn foetus is a potential person not an actual one. If there was no Mother to carry it the foetus could not survive, therefore the relationship is symbiotic. Therefore I believe it is the Mothers choice wether or not to support the symbiosis up until the point where it is possible for the child to survive outside of the womb. The Mother is going to be responsible for the childs future, if they are not ready to look after a child it's their right not to have one.

The comparison you make is utterly ridiculous. I'm interested to see how far you're ready to take it though. What about the unfertilised eggs that get discarded in ovulation? Should we dedicate ourselves to protecting those potential unborns? How about when guys masturbate? Should they be sent to prison if they do not save their semen for potential fertilisation? Surely that's thousands of innocent human beings they're wiping off their hands and onto a tissue.

At which point do we declare them innocent human beings? Is a woman who miscarries a couple of weeks into her pregnancy guilty of manslaughter because her body has rejected the foetus as a matter of bioligical inconvenience?

Ofcourse I'm not arguing for a right to murder, this is a completely different issue.

Haha I LOVE.

 

[inbadfaith]

I am getting confused. Palerider constantly refers to legal terminology, scientific terminology and then apply that to 'right' and 'wrong'. Then others (myself included) make an appeal to ethics... Which are we discussing? More later... gnight everyone...

 

[Lilly Marlene]

I am getting confused. Palerider constantly refers to legal terminology, scientific terminology and then apply that to 'right' and 'wrong'. Then others (myself included) make an appeal to ethics... Which are we discussing? More later... gnight everyone...

Let's see if this helps.

Legally, in many places, there is only one justification for killing another human being: self defense.

Science confirms that a developing fetus is a human being.

Thus to be consistent, the only justification for taking away the life of that developing human being, for killing her ...is if her existence threatens to extinguish or significantly impair OUR life (self defense).

*************************************


The circumstances mentioned by another poster above are red herrings, and not very effective ones.

Miscarriages and losses of bodily fluids are obviously not deliberately-undertaken plans ...scheduled with providers ... to destroy intentionally the life of a living being.

Also [point of information] 'symbiotic' is an inaccurate term for describing the relationship of mother and child (the word 'symbiotic' indicates reciprocal survival benefits).

 

[palerider]

I am getting confused. Palerider constantly refers to legal terminology, scientific terminology and then apply that to 'right' and 'wrong'. Then others (myself included) make an appeal to ethics... Which are we discussing? More later... gnight everyone...

This isn't rocket science, if you are confused, it is confusion of your own making.

In the discussion of ethics, do you support allowing one human being to kill another for reasons that amount to no more than convenience?

If you do, then there we are. If you don't, then it falls upon you to show that unborns are not human beings and therefore can't be included in ethical discussions revolving around the topic of one human being killing another.

 

[saggyjones]

For the purpose of this thread I'm going to assume that fetuses are living humans beings, and killing one is the same as killing a born human (although I believe there is a difference because a fetus' brain isn't fully developed until close to birth).

I am "pro-choice" because I believe a woman who doesn't feel capable to take care of her baby would not provide a good home for her child. Any mother will tell you that they love their children more than anything in the world, and I think everyone can agree that nurture as a child is very important in a person's life. In fact, it affects what they do for the rest of their life and what kind of person they are.

I'm sure you all know someone who was a bad kid, and they probably ended up not being too successful in life. I know a lot of foster kids, mostly because of my mom being a social worker, and they are nice enough. But their childhoods were so bad that most of them have landed in jail. Their parents didn't want them and were obviously not smart enough to use protection and not get pregnant. If a parent is that irresponsible and doesn't love their child enough to take care of it, do you think they are fit to raise the kid? No, they aren't.

Also, "crack babies" can have serious disorders and become addicted to a drug while in the mother's womb. And if a mother is using drugs while pregnant, she isn't fit to raise a child anyway.

If a woman wants to try to raise a child, fine, but if she doesn't have confidence that she can, then why force her and the child into a bad situation?

 

[palerider]

For the purpose of this thread I'm going to assume that fetuses are living humans beings, and killing one is the same as killing a born human (although I believe there is a difference because a fetus' brain isn't fully developed until close to birth).

Your brain isn't "fully" developed until you are in your late teens or early 20's so that point is moot. We are all still developing long after we are born and enjoy the protection of the law

I am "pro-choice" because I believe a woman who doesn't feel capable to take care of her baby would not provide a good home for her child. Any mother will tell you that they love their children more than anything in the world, and I think everyone can agree that nurture as a child is very important in a person's life. In fact, it affects what they do for the rest of their life and what kind of person they are.

So because a child "might" not live a happy life, we shoud allow them to be killed? There are no promises for any of us and to the best of my knowledge, I don't know anyone who has never suffered any unhappiness so I suppose we should have all been terminated.

Also, the law provides for a woman to turn over a child without even filing paperwork to any police or fire station, no questions asked so she isn't responsible for providing it anything after it is born.

I'm sure you all know someone who was a bad kid, and they probably ended up not being too successful in life. I know a lot of foster kids, mostly because of my mom being a social worker, and they are nice enough. But their childhoods were so bad that most of them have landed in jail. Their parents didn't want them and were obviously not smart enough to use protection and not get pregnant. If a parent is that irresponsible and doesn't love their child enough to take care of it, do you think they are fit to raise the kid? No, they aren't.

If that is sufficent logic for justifying killing before birth, statistically, blacks are far more likely to end up in jail than even foster kids. Are you saying that we should just kill all unborn blacks because the chances are that they are going to turn out bad?

Also, "crack babies" can have serious disorders and become addicted to a drug while in the mother's womb. And if a mother is using drugs while pregnant, she isn't fit to raise a child anyway.

So how do you feel about going about rounding up addicts on the streets and executing them? Or is it just unborn addicts that you favor killing?

If a woman wants to try to raise a child, fine, but if she doesn't have confidence that she can, then why force her and the child into a bad situation?

Again, the law provides her with an out. She has no responsibility to raise the child that she does not want to take on.

 

[saggyjones]

Your brain isn't "fully" developed until you are in your late teens or early 20's so that point is moot. We are all still developing long after we are born and enjoy the protection of the law

This doesn't matter for my point below, so I won't argue it. But you're right once again.

So because a child "might" not live a happy life, we shoud allow them to be killed? There are no promises for any of us and to the best of my knowledge, I don't know anyone who has never suffered any unhappiness so I suppose we should have all been terminated.

Also, the law provides for a woman to turn over a child without even filing paperwork to any police or fire station, no questions asked so she isn't responsible for providing it anything after it is born.

If that is sufficent logic for justifying killing before birth, statistically, blacks are far more likely to end up in jail than even foster kids. Are you saying that we should just kill all unborn blacks because the chances are that they are going to turn out bad?

So how do you feel about going about rounding up addicts on the streets and executing them? Or is it just unborn addicts that you favor killing?

Again, the law provides her with an out. She has no responsibility to raise the child that she does not want to take on.

I've changed my mind on abortion now, you're right, it should be illegal. But the only way to truly decide where you stand on a subject is to argue one side and be proven wrong.

 

[palerider]

I've changed my mind on abortion now, you're right, it should be illegal. But the only way to truly decide where you stand on a subject is to argue one side and be proven wrong.

No one changes their mind that easily.

I do believe that there are some rare situations where a woman should be allowed to terminate her pregnancy. If her life or long term health are in danger, for example, we do have the right to kill to defend ourselves even if the one threatening us doesn't have malicious intent. Such cases are rare and sad, but they do exist.

 

[Friendindeed]

Maybe she didn't change her mind that easily.
Maybe she has been giving it some thought.