The Abortion Debate (continued) (3 Viewers)

[ur_inner_child]

How can you females even consider murdering your unborn child?

Its not just women that can support abortions.

 

[BradCube]

I'd also add, that I can't see how one can protest for the 'life' of an early term foetus and not be a vegetarian.

I think that the general assumption made is that human life, or even the possibility of it, is of more value then the other life forms on this planet.

 

[transcendent]

That statement is relatively true. However there are many factors attributing 'worth' to 'life'. If you hold that life is not sacred or in most cases less sacred then what other's hold life to be then it isn't a problem now is it. Consider the reasons parents bring children into the world first before arguing this debate. Was the child an accident or was the attempt at having children deliberate? If the child was an accident, what kind of accident was it? Rape or promiscuity gone wrong? There are many other factors as well such as genetic conflictings and hereditary failures. Most would see the chances of a child with no mental illnesses or physical defiencies as high. You take a chance to produce a child. And what if you as a potential parent feel that your chances of bringing a child that is healthy into this would is reduce? Would you be less then likely to bring a child into this world? Would you rather not have a child, not have the child, or waste money running endless tests to find whether the chances of a healthy child is high with your current partner? What partner would tolerate such examinations? What if say you want your child to be above average in mental ability or physical ability by having a partner that has suitable attributes? I wonder how many care about these factors and just have children for 'happiness' or to continue there legacy. You have to consider the environment you are bringing your child into. An uncertain world.

 

[robbie1]

Its not just women that can support abortions.

Thats right and I did mention males in my post.

 

[banco55]

Its not just women that can support abortions.

True. But men can't stop women from killing their child for that matter.

 

[transcendent]

Yeah, I always wondered how much say men actually have in abortion of their child anyways. It ultimately comes down to the woman yet at the same time they have to pay child support should there be differences in the relationship status.

 

[ur_inner_child]

Thats right and I did mention males in my post.

Ah, I didn't read that part. Apologies.
Perhaps construct sentences so that you mention both at the same time?

 

[Not-That-Bright]

Abortion = Murder.

Fine, let's say that abortion is essentially taking the life of an innocent person. Read http://spot.colorado.edu/~heathwoo/Phil160,Fall02/thomson.htm please.

How can you females even consider murdering your unborn child? This fact perplexes me. You want to murder an innocent child so your life is better. Disgraceful.

Again, this is easily outlined in that article I provided.

You wake up in the morning and find yourself back to back in bed with an unconscious violinist. A famous unconscious violinist. He has been found to have a fatal kidney ailment, and the Society of Music Lovers has canvassed all the available medical records and found that you alone have the right blood type to help. They have therefore kidnapped you, and last night the violinist's circulatory system was plugged into yours, so that your kidneys can be used to extract poisons from his blood as well as your own. [If he is unplugged from you now, he will die; but in nine months] he will have recovered from his ailment, and can safely be unplugged from you

Thomson takes it that you may now permissibly unplug yourself from the violinist even though this will cause his death: the right to life, Thomson says, does not entail the right to use another person's body, and so by unplugging the violinist you do not violate his right to life but merely deprive him of something—the use of your body—to which he has no right. "f you do allow him to go on using your kidneys, this is a kindness on your part, and not something he can claim from you as his due."[5]

For the same reason, Thomson says, abortion does not violate the fetus's right to life but merely deprives the fetus of something—the use of the pregnant woman's body—to which it has no right. Thus, it is not that by terminating her pregnancy a woman violates her moral obligations, but rather that a woman who carries the fetus to term is a 'Good Samaritan' who goes beyond her obligations.[6]

There are a whole bunch of criticisms (and rather well reasoned counters to those criticisms) which you can see at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Defense_of_Abortion . If you could read the article, then come up with your objection I'll give you the counter to that objection and you could then perhaps explain to me why you feel that counter is not well-argued.

 

[kami]

I think that the general assumption made is that human life, or even the possibility of it, is of more value then the other life forms on this planet.

A foetus is not demonstratably human in its early stages though - it is little better than a cell growth. So if people believe (independent of religion) that terminating a cluster of cells is immoral/unjust, then it seems more of a line in the sand than a logical conclusion if they support termination of other more aware life forms.

I'm not trying to argue that we criminalise animal termination but I am trying to outline that it is inconsistent to argue against abortion on the basis that 'life' is sacred. To further that point, I do not understand how one can argue for the 'humanity' of a foetus either, as in the early stages, a foetus displays none of the properties that set humans apart from other species.

So in a non-religious context it seems we are simply deciding on the basis that something has a potential to display human attributes, and thus we accept that it is not a person. If it is not a person, then it does not yet have the rights of one and by default these rights would IMO be passed to the mother as the early stage foetus seems to be little more than a symbiote derived(in part) from the mothers own genetic material.

We have heaps of laws governing the conduct of medical professionals etc. Doctors aren't allowed to amputate people's hands if they request it because it's "their body". Similarly society doesn't allow people to take any drugs they want because it's "their body".

You'll notice that I wasn't arguing laws, I was explaining my moral stance on this issue - that it would be immoral/unjust for the govt to illegalise abortion, I was not arguing the legality or precedent for the government to legislate.

 

[Not-That-Bright]

It ultimately comes down to the woman yet at the same time they have to pay child support should there be differences in the relationship status.

There was a msn conversation about this earlier. While I agreed that allowing men to terminate their legal rights to the child as an 'out' (much as a woman can abort for an out) seems on the surface to be fair, there are practical problems. Often the man is needed to support the woman/child, without him then society will have to take the burden, why should society take the burden instead of the man whom we must admit is more responsible?

So in a non-religious context it seems we are simply deciding on the basis that something has a potential to display human attributes, and thus we accept that it is not a person. If it is not a person, then it does not yet have the rights of one and by default these rights would IMO be passed to the mother as the early stage foetus seems to be little more than a symbiote derived(in part) from the mothers own genetic material.

Even if we grant that a fetus is a human and that it has a right to life, as the mother also has her own freedoms and has not granted the fetus the right to use her body she can then remove the fetus and let it die.

I very strongly recommend reading http://spot.colorado.edu/~heathwoo/Phil160,Fall02/thomson.htm for an analysis of the 'right to life' argument.

I propose, then, that we grant that the fetus is a person from the moment of conception. How does the argument go from here? Something like this, I take it. Every person has a right to life. So the fetus has a right to life. No doubt the mother has a right to decide what shall happen in and to her body; everyone would grant that. But surely a person's right to life is stronger and more stringent than the mother's right to decide what happens in and to her body, and so outweighs it. So the fetus may not be killed; an abortion may not be performed.



It sounds plausible. But now let me ask you to imagine this. You wake up in the morning and find yourself back to back in bed with an unconscious violinist. A famous unconscious violinist. He has been found to have a fatal kidney ailment, and the Society of Music Lovers has canvassed all the available medical records and found that you alone have the right blood type to help. They have therefore kidnapped you, and last night the violinist's circulatory system was plugged into yours, so that your kidneys can be used to extract poisons from his blood as well as your own. The director of the hospital now tells you, "Look, we're sorry the Society of Music Lovers did this to you--we would never have permitted it if we had known. But still, they did it, and the violinist is now plugged into you. To unplug you would be to kill him. But never mind, it's only for nine months. By then he will have recovered from his ailment, and can safely be unplugged from you." Is it morally incumbent on you to accede to this situation? No doubt it would be very nice of you if you did, a great kindness. But do you have to accede to it? What if it were not nine months, but nine years? Or longer still? What if the director of the hospital says. "Tough luck. I agree. but now you've got to stay in bed, with the violinist plugged into you, for the rest of your life. Because remember this. All persons have a right to life, and violinists are persons. Granted you have a right to decide what happens in and to your body, but a person's right to life outweighs your right to decide what happens in and to your body. So you cannot ever be unplugged from him." I imagine you would regard this as outrageous, which suggests that something really is wrong with that plausible-sounding argument I mentioned a moment ago.

 

[transcendent]

In the context of contemporary society however the burden of support from the 'father' is not so much required as it was in the past. Women have the power to remove the child, yet at the same time keep the child and force the 'father' to pay. Reminds me of the movie 'Parenthood' where the wife pricked the condoms so that she could have another child when the husband did not.

 

[robbie1]

Ah, I didn't read that part. Apologies.
Perhaps construct sentences so that you mention both at the same time?

I'll try and do that in the future, because you asked nicely

 

[robbie1]

Not That Bright - I couldn't care less what some scientist says about when life begins. Scientists are atheists (well, the vast majority of them) so I pay no attention to such people. Just as they pay no attention to the soul that enters this world at the moment of conception.

Therefore, whether the baby is breathing or not means nothing. At the moment of conception a new soul is born. Hence, abortion = murder.

If your not a Christian, I don't expect you to agree with me. But I am and thats the way I see it - and one day you will see that I am right.

Even if you are not religious, I still can't understand how you could do such a thing to your unborn baby. Something so prescious is metaphorically thrown into the bin like its rubbish. Its human life, its prescious, its sacred, and it should be receieved with open arms.

What is the world coming to when a baby is considered a burden rather then a special gift...so sad.

 

[banco55]

In the context of contemporary society however the burden of support from the 'father' is not so much required as it was in the past. Women have the power to remove the child, yet at the same time keep the child and force the 'father' to pay. Reminds me of the movie 'Parenthood' where the wife pricked the condoms so that she could have another child when the husband did not.

Legally there's more a burden on the father. These days a woman can walk out take the kid and force the father to continue paying support. A generation ago if you weren't married (and often even if you were) and the man walked out/the woman walked out it was much harder to force the man to pay. Not to mention there wasn't welfare for single mothers. Not surpisingly the number of initact families has gone down since these two fantastic innovations.

 

[katietheskatie]

i have a hypothetical situation for all you pro-life kids.

okay, what if a 12 year old girl was raped by her father and fell pregnant? would you really expect that girl to go through the pain, medical problems and psychological trauma she would endure, not to mention being ridiculed by her peers and society in general? especially when the birth could cause her severe medical problems, and most likely either result in a stillbirth or an extremely genetically inbred child? and would you really expect, after all that, for the poor girl to have to raise the child, when she's still a child herself?

i don't know, people might say "oh cases like that only constitute 0.00001% of all abortions" -- and that might be true, but that's 0.00001% of people that are going to be completely fucked over if they become illegal. like .. can you honestly say that you'd go through with it, given the choice and availability of abortion, if girl that was you?

 

[AntiHyper]

What is the world coming to when a baby is considered a burden rather then a special gift...so sad.

It's called over-population and too many humans can cause harm to the ecological environment. Especially in developing countries, new farms or fields typically has to be cleared from forests to increase food output.

Look at China as an example, they have a population of 1,313,973,713 (July 2006 Estimate). Some of them now have to seek place else where in the world. Also, too many people in a cramped area can enable diseases typically airborne like the flu to spread much faster.

Comparing today's human population to the pre-christ era, they are almost certainly in need of more people because work back then didn't consist of travelling by car or calling up someone miles away for discussion. They do back-breaking work, which are only accomplishable with lots of workers. Today we have machines and all that.

 

[Not-That-Bright]

Not That Bright - I couldn't care less what some scientist says about when life begins. Scientists are atheists (well, the vast majority of them) so I pay no attention to such people. Just as they pay no attention to the soul that enters this world at the moment of conception.

Er actually, if you read the article... it assumes that life begins at conception and that the fetus is a human with rights.

I still can't understand how you could do such a thing to your unborn baby. Something so prescious is metaphorically thrown into the bin like its rubbish.

Maybe you should read the dang article then and do exactly as I explained, to show what your objections really are.

There are a whole bunch of criticisms (and rather well reasoned counters to those criticisms) which you can see at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Defense_of_Abortion . If you could read the article, then come up with your objection I'll give you the counter to that objection and you could then perhaps explain to me why you feel that counter is not well-argued.

The Article: http://spot.colorado.edu/~heathwoo/Phil160,Fall02/thomson.htm

In the context of contemporary society however the burden of support from the 'father' is not so much required as it was in the past. Women have the power to remove the child, yet at the same time keep the child and force the 'father' to pay. Reminds me of the movie 'Parenthood' where the wife pricked the condoms so that she could have another child when the husband did not.

While I agree with the rest of your point, I do think that morally it is justifiable to allow father's an out just as much as the woman has. However as I said before, I don't think it's practical. You claim that the burden of support from the father is not required as much? Can you explain where they are to get their support? If society, then I put it to you that the father should at least bare a considerable amount of the cost as he was much more responsible for the creation of the child than society at large.

 

[transcendent]

Not That Bright - I couldn't care less what some scientist says about when life begins. Scientists are atheists (well, the vast majority of them) so I pay no attention to such people. Just as they pay no attention to the soul that enters this world at the moment of conception.

Therefore, whether the baby is breathing or not means nothing. At the moment of conception a new soul is born. Hence, abortion = murder.

If your not a Christian, I don't expect you to agree with me. But I am and thats the way I see it - and one day you will see that I am right.

Even if you are not religious, I still can't understand how you could do such a thing to your unborn baby. Something so prescious is metaphorically thrown into the bin like its rubbish. Its human life, its prescious, its sacred, and it should be receieved with open arms.

What is the world coming to when a baby is considered a burden rather then a special gift...so sad.

Yeah, and I care nothing for people like you. You go on about not caring for scientists but it is the scientist who brought technology for you to use. If you cared so much about your all so powerful and gracious God then abandon all technology and go live in the dark ages and start a farm somewhere with all your other communal God loving folk and stop bothering us.

 

[banco55]

i have a hypothetical situation for all you pro-life kids.

okay, what if a 12 year old girl was raped by her father and fell pregnant? would you really expect that girl to go through the pain, medical problems and psychological trauma she would endure, not to mention being ridiculed by her peers and society in general? especially when the birth could cause her severe medical problems, and most likely either result in a stillbirth or an extremely genetically inbred child? and would you really expect, after all that, for the poor girl to have to raise the child, when she's still a child herself?

i don't know, people might say "oh cases like that only constitute 0.00001% of all abortions" -- and that might be true, but that's 0.00001% of people that are going to be completely fucked over if they become illegal. like .. can you honestly say that you'd go through with it, given the choice and availability of abortion, if girl that was you?

That's probably why there are very few proposals for outlawing abortion in western countries that don't include an exception for incest or rape.

 

[Not-That-Bright]

The silliest thing is that I specifically told him that the argument used allows that it is alive at the point of conception and that it has a right to life.

That's probably why there are very few proposals for outlawing abortion in western countries that don't include an exception for incest or rape.

Why is it that all of a sudden you do not have a right to life if your life is the product of incest/rape?