Abortion??? anyone??

[The Scotsman]

Why does abortion debate always descend into the trading of strict legal nicities, the definitions of what collections of cells are called or definitions of celluar functionaliy?

Isn't it more to do with the woman - her desire to be a mother, to decide whether she wants the baby or not? Science cannot answer the question of whether a mother will be a good parent or role model for her offspring and niether can lawyers or religion.

 

[Pandora]

Why does abortion debate always descend into the trading of strict legal nicities, the definitions of what collections of cells are called or definitions of celluar functionaliy?

Isn't it more to do with the woman - her desire to be a mother, to decide whether she wants the baby or not? Science cannot answer the question of whether a mother will be a good parent or role model for her offspring and niether can lawyers or religion.

Well if it’s all about a woman not having the desire to be a mother then why is it against the law when a woman kills her baby after it’s born? I would think in all of those cases the woman just lost the desire to want to be a mom.

She could consider adoption or giving the child to the father or parents but decided that she didn’t want the baby to live period. All of those same things you can do for a baby you are carrying (just a few months later) actually if a woman lost the desire to raise her kids after birth it would take a few months I would think to get the paperwork in order to adopt them out exc. Maybe the same amount of time as gestation.

I know of no case where a baby in the womb at 5, 6 or 7 months has any less human or a person than a baby delivered is.

It's fair to say that a baby in the first stages of the first trimester doesn’t look much like a person. But I just looked up a baby in the later stages of the first trimester and asked my 8 year old daughter what do you think that is? She said, it’s a baby! Then she pointed out, here is his head here are his legs and here is his arms. How can an 8 year old be smarter than grown ups here who call it a clump of cells? At that moment of conception yes it does look just like a clump of cells for the first couple of weeks, by the sixth week you can see a body is clearly forming, eyes and ears exc. By the 11th week vital organs are in place, by the 12th week Reflex responses to brain and though the baby's head is larger than the rest of the body, it is clearly a baby... even my 8 year old could see that without any help.

Inconsistency irritates me. If murdering your kids is going to be considered legal then stop prosecuting women who kill their kids after gestation. Because their reasons for wanting the baby dead is no different than the reasons of the woman who aborted her fully formed baby at 3 months and beyond.

 

[Dawkinsrocks]

''Well if it’s all about a woman not having the desire to be a mother then why is it against the law when a woman kills her baby after it’s born? I would think in all of those cases the woman just lost the desire to want to be a mom. ''

Obamanation displays his/her understanding of the issues.

''The woman just lost her desire to be a mom.''

There you have it ladies.

Obamanation has spoken.

Unfortunately

 

[Agnapostate]

There is a rarely mentioned justification for abortion that I would like to bring up in this thread.

The justification is one of interests. Most liberal arguments fall short when it comes to addressing conservative opposition to abortion. But the justification based on interests is remarkably successful in this regard.

The typical opposition to abortion is that it destroys innocent human life. Liberals usually object that the fetus is not "human life." I think this is the wrong issue to be addressing. We can establish that the fetus is human life, just as multitudes of cells throughout the human body are "human life." We cannot, however, establish that the fetus is human life of significant moral value as easily. The embryo lacks moral value entirely because it does not have a single trait of personhood. It is not self-aware, (meaning that it does not have the capacity to view itself as a distinct entity existing over time), it does not have the capability to form rational moral preferences about its future, and it lacks the capacity to feel pain. It does not possess the capacity to feel pain until it is a late fetus.

Hence, the reason that the killing of an embryo or fetus is not morally equivalent to the murder of an older human is because the embryo or fetus (I’ll say fetus for convenience) is not a self-aware being, and does not possess certain necessary traits of personhood, such as the aforementioned self-consciousness, rationality, and for a long time, the capacity to feel pleasure and pain. A fetus does not have the same claim to life as a being that possesses those characteristics, and a fetus lacks personhood. Many nonhuman animals possess greater traits of personhood than a fetus does, and it is considered morally acceptable to kill those animals because they taste good.

As for the common claim that a fetus is a potential person, a potential person does not possess the same moral rights as an actual person. It does not hold that a potential X is equivalent to a current X. While a being is a fetus, it does not possess self-consciousness, that is, the capacity to view itself as a distinct entity over time. It may someday possess self-consciousness and other traits of personhood, such as rationality and the capacity to feel pleasure and pain, but at the moment, it does not. Hence, killing a fetus that lacks the capacity to make rational preferences, (such as the desire to live) is not morally equivalent to killing a being which does possess the capacity to make rational preferences, because killing the latter would deny and prevent the satisfaction of such preferences, which is antithetical to Enlightenment values of liberty and self-determination.

It is more wrong to drop a chicken into a pot of boiling water than it would be an egg. It is more wrong to chop down a venerable oak tree than to pull out an acorn. Recall that just about every cell on your body is a potential person. Recall that the existence of “potential persons” is thwarted by celibacy and contraception, and you do not consider those things to be morally wrong. (Presumably.) The argument regarding the potential personhood of a fetus certainly does not get you very far.

The feminist author Judith Jarvis Thomson has used the following analogy to justify abortion. A famous violinist is stricken with a disease, and requires an extremely rare blood type to survive. You have the blood type, and so a society of music lovers kidnaps you, and attaches your circulatory system to that of the violinist. You could get up and leave if you want to, but if you do, the violinist will die. However, if you remain connected to the violinist for nine months, he will fully recover. Is it morally acceptable for you to disconnect yourself from the violinist? Thomson holds that it is.

To me, this is the wrong example to be using becase the fetus lacks personhood. A better example would be if your circulatory system were attached to that of a rat, and the rat would die if you got up and disconnected yourself. Would disconnecting yourself be acceptable in this instance? I suspect that most conservatives would agree, and the only morally relevant difference between the fetus and the rat is that the rat possesses more traits of personhood than the fetus does.

Most conservatives consider it acceptable to place rat traps in a rat infested area to prevent the rodents from gnawing through food and other supplies. A single rat can probably incur damage of a few dollars, whereas an inconveniently timed pregnancy can incur damages of thousands of dollars. Conservatives may argue that the two situations are not comparable, and to some extent this is true, as a rat is a more advanced being than an early embryo or even a late fetus. It possesses a rudimentary level of self-consciousness and is capable of feeling pain.

Ultimately, we must consider the interests of a woman in not going through nine months of disability and a painful childbirth, as well as whatever economic difficulties an inconveniently timed childbirth may bring outweigh whatever rudimentary interests a fetus that is not a self-aware or rational being has.

 

[Dawkinsrocks]

This is precisely why anti abortionsists use loaded terms like child, baby or person in an attempt to skew the reasoning.

Even the term human being is loaded although actually it is only a species name.

Nobody really considers a few cells on their own with no brain to be a human being, person, child, baby etc because they aren't.

Now when it comes to a large collection of cells with a functioning brain all of which is capable of supporting itself outside the mother's body and in fact has been doing so for years, many 'pro-lifers' suddenly have a conversion and think it is perfectly fine for them to be killed.

A lesser person than me would call that hypocrisy.

 

[The Scotsman]

Inconsistency irritates me.

.... if only the world were a perfect place huh! Ah well, I guess if God had wanted a perfect world he would not have invented humans.

 

[Dawkinsrocks]

Or himself

 

[Agnapostate]

Well if it’s all about a woman not having the desire to be a mother then why is it against the law when a woman kills her baby after it’s born? I would think in all of those cases the woman just lost the desire to want to be a mom.

She could consider adoption or giving the child to the father or parents but decided that she didn’t want the baby to live period. All of those same things you can do for a baby you are carrying (just a few months later) actually if a woman lost the desire to raise her kids after birth it would take a few months I would think to get the paperwork in order to adopt them out exc. Maybe the same amount of time as gestation.

I know of no case where a baby in the womb at 5, 6 or 7 months has any less human or a person than a baby delivered is.

It's fair to say that a baby in the first stages of the first trimester doesn’t look much like a person. But I just looked up a baby in the later stages of the first trimester and asked my 8 year old daughter what do you think that is? She said, it’s a baby! Then she pointed out, here is his head here are his legs and here is his arms. How can an 8 year old be smarter than grown ups here who call it a clump of cells? At that moment of conception yes it does look just like a clump of cells for the first couple of weeks, by the sixth week you can see a body is clearly forming, eyes and ears exc. By the 11th week vital organs are in place, by the 12th week Reflex responses to brain and though the baby's head is larger than the rest of the body, it is clearly a baby... even my 8 year old could see that without any help.

Inconsistency irritates me. If murdering your kids is going to be considered legal then stop prosecuting women who kill their kids after gestation. Because their reasons for wanting the baby dead is no different than the reasons of the woman who aborted her fully formed baby at 3 months and beyond.

What do you call the top row of images? Do you note any distinction between them?

 

[Dawkinsrocks]

Great post.

Also, if these pro-lifers eat a chicken's egg that has been fertilsed (as some are when they arrive on your table) do they say they are eating chicken rather than eggs?

 

[Federal Farmer]

Nevertheless, the constitution says and means what the supreme court says it means; they are the only ones that are the recognized entity with that authority.

I fear that your apparant reverence for the "infallibility" of SCOTUS is woefully misplaced. SCOTUS is repleat with instances where they have reversed themselves, or had their decisions nullified by legislation.

Therefore, if you persist in your debate that the constitution means other than what the court established in Roe V. Wade, there must be some other reason why this particular issue evokes so much passion with you.

Possibly for the same reason that the decision in Dred Scott v Sandford invoked so much passion, and led to a CIVIL WAR???

I have observed in your posts and those of many others who are not in agreement with Roe V. Wade, refer to the fetus as being "innocent", and references to the willingness of a woman to have the sex that resulted in the conception of a child. This begs the questions: What is the fetus "innocent" of? Sin, perhaps?

How about simply being innocent of committing any crime, that under our system of Jurisprudence, would justify being put to death? Is that concept so alien to you? Oh, and is it also necessary for you to attempt to insert religion into a discussion about basic human rights?

Why is the mother less innocent than an unborn fetus? Is it because she had dirty, filthy sex for the purpose of personal pleasure instead of for the purpose of conceiving a child?

No, it's because she (allegedly) made a conscious decision to engage in an activity that she KNEW could/would result in pregnancy! That is, of course, unless it is your contention that females are incapable of controlling themselves, and that their reproductive urges are so powerful that it precludes them from having the ability to contol themselves.

Sex of any kind, for any reason, no matter how perverted, is not a "sin" outside the context of religion. Therefore, anti-abortionists frequently inject religion into this argument also, but they are just more subtle about it.

Seems to me that you're the only one trying to insert religion into the discussion.

 

[Agnapostate]

And what, my friend, do you have to say to Post #94?

 

[Pandora]

.... if only the world were a perfect place huh! Ah well, I guess if God had wanted a perfect world he would not have invented humans.

Well that I can agree with. We were not meant to be perfect but we were meant I believe to help others. And everyone has a passion on who they will help. All are worthy.

People in prison, guilty or not need love and some are called to that passion

Children even if they can’t talk have the right to live, and some are called to that passion.

Abuse is another

Some people are born in a body that they don’t feel right in and some are called to help them.

We are all called to something and if the world were perfect we would have no purpose.

I wonder though about those being called to justify killing babies. That one does throw me.

 

[Federal Farmer]

Do you grasp that the Constitution means what the Supreme Court says it means? By that definition, no they cannot be wrong. We have no choice in the matter. Unless that is, you want to hold your breath until they see that you are not going to stand for it. Asleep during Government class?

While I can't speak for Lib, it would appear that you were. The Constitution means exactly what it says, regardless of what anyone, including SCOTUS says, and the fact that SCOTUS has reversed themselves so many times, or had their decisions rendered moot by Legislation disproves your entire thesis. Contrary to popular opinion, SCOTUS does not share an equivilent of "Papal Infallibility".

 

[Federal Farmer]

All men are indeed equals, and men in this generic term includes women.

Good so far.

A woman feels she does not wish to have a child, so she opts for termination.

But how quickly they stumble. Shall we review the DOI again?

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

If we are to accept that LIFE is an INALIENABLE RIGHT, then by what "right" does a woman murder the life that she herself chose to create? Is it your contention that the woman is ........GOD???? That she, and she alone has the power of life and death?? I fear not, since by the very text of the Constitution, specifically the 5th Amendment, clearly states that

"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, ... nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;"

Now, given that ANYTHING that can result in someones life being terminated IS a capital offense, according to the Constitution, BEFORE you may terminate that persons life, you must first empanel a Grand Jury, and they must forward an Indictment, after which the ACCUSED must be arrested and formally charged with that crime, they must have their bail hearing in a court of law in front of a Judge and represented by competent legal counsel, and all of this BEFORE they are tried, again in a court of law, in front of a jury of their peers, which must decide the case based on the facts and evidence presented in court against them, and even if they are found guilty, there are layers of appeals that MUST be afforded to the accused LONG before they can be executed.

The argument then arises that this child does not have the choice of pursuing happiness. But alas, the child cannot pursue happiness, since as a fetus it has NO CONCEPT of happiness, it has no concept of anything and thus, her right to this supersedes that of the intangible, and what is suggest as nonexistent, consciousness.

Strawman. The child is being PREVENTED from pursuing happiness by being MURDERED.

Your arguments revolve around the right of a non conscious life form in lieu of the right of a conscious and able minded individual. Let's take for example a comatose victim, is it right to pull the plug? If so, why, if not, why not? It is the termination of a "human" life as you call the fetus, it differs only in age, but not in what it is as a person.

Again, you continue to rely on "facts not in evidence". You have asserted that the child is not conscious, support your allegation, or admit that it is fallacious.

The differences in dealing with a comatose individual, and an inutero child is that prior to removing the comatose person from life support, an exhaustive series of tests is required to ensure that there is little/no hope of the comatose person every regaining conciousness. If there is even the slightest possibility that they will regain conciousness, then life support may not be removed. Also, prior to removing a comatose person from life support (lacking a DNR signed by that person), a court must also sign off on the request, or in Constitutional terms, their 5th Amendment Rights have been secured. In an abortion, the child has every possibility of being delivered fully conscious and functional in less than 9 months, and in the case of abortion, the childs 5th Amendment Rights are completely ignored.

Volunteering is never a forced choice, and by your very words the use of her internal organs to support a fetus is purely voluntary, she has the right to cease the voluntary use thereof.

I fear that you have contradicted yourself. Once she has volunteered to take on the responsibility for the very life of the child, she may not retract that responsibility, as it will result in the death of the child. Using your previous comatose victim analogy, once a hospital takes on the responsibility for a destitute comatose victim, they cannot arbitrarily decide to remove that person from life support simply because "they no longer desire to support him". They have assumed the responsibility, and they must see it through until such time as appropriate legal remedy has been reached to transfer that person to another facility, or have their life support terminated.

 

[Agnapostate]

Well that I can agree with. We were not meant to be perfect but we were meant I believe to help others. And everyone has a passion on who they will help. All are worthy.

People in prison, guilty or not need love and some are called to that passion

Children even if they can’t talk have the right to live, and some are called to that passion.

Abuse is another

Some people are born in a body that they don’t feel right in and some are called to help them.

We are all called to something and if the world were perfect we would have no purpose.

I wonder though about those being called to justify killing babies. That one does throw me.

Post #94, my friend...