Legal or Illegal: Abortion?

[Bond]

Traditionally, I watch on television and see the issue of abortion broken down into two polarized viewpoints: those with strong religious views on God’s power of creation vs. those with strong views for “women’s rights.” I view this sensationalized debate as a fallacy.

I will now attempt to make an argument against the legality of abortion, without evoking God in the slightest. In fact, I will argue that it is any modern government’s responsibility to ban abortion.

We must first examine the role of a modern government. In the most basic sense, its role should be to protect its citizen’s civil liberties and security. The government, in order to be impartial, must protect the civil liberties of all of its citizens. Encompassed among this phrase “all citizens” is the least among us – the poor, the disabled, and the unborn. In fact, if the government cannot protect the least among us, how can we have confidence in our government?

I know the argument is often made as to when precisely this mass of cells becomes a true human, but I find this argument irrelative. The truth is we just don’t know, and frankly, we don’t need to know. Having unprotected sex is a risk. It’s a risk that could produce a human, and that risk must be accepted, in fact, it is the responsibility of those engaging in unprotected sex to be aware of the possibility of a child – there is no excuse.

When a woman conceives – she is now not only in charge of her fate, but also the fate of an unborn human. This unborn human, being among the least of our citizens, must be entitled to his or her own destiny. Modern governments do not allow murder. Murder is a direct a violent compromise of one’s own destiny, and a violation of one’s liberties – this is abortion.

I will intentionally keep this brief so that we can continue the conversation with points left out, but allow me to also add a personal note. Have you ever seen an abortion performed? I have… thankfully on videotape. It is a horrible act. Murder.

[DeathsHand]

What of those who used faulty protection, those stupid enough to consider "pulling out" a form of birth control, or those whose doctors prescribed placebos instead of an actual contraceptive?

[Vampyr]

Bond - That is wrong on so many levels, I'm very unimpressed and a little astounded that you would write that and believe it.

Having unprotected sex is a risk. It’s a risk that could produce a human, and that risk must be accepted, in fact, it is the responsibility of those engaging in unprotected sex to be aware of the possibility of a child – there is no excuse.

Really. Really? Really. Most modern birth control is around 98% effective, which I guess is the same as 100%. Women enjoy being raped, too, anyone who has watched enough porn related to that fetish knows that. They willingly partake in it and there simply is no excuse if they complain should they become pregnant.

It's embarrassing that someone with a thinking mind would call aborting a mass of cells not capable of thought as murder. A few weeks before my last school year was out there was a huge protest on campus of "pro-life" people, which all these pictures of "babies dying", and all these signs up saying "Warning: Genocide" ahead. They compared it to the holocaust. One of the professors at my campus, who is Jewish and teaches the Holocaust said to one of the people, "How dare you compare this to the Holocaust."

And did you even consider a situation where having the baby could kill the mother? If my girlfriend and future wife were to be in this situation, I would surely choose her over an unborn.

It is the woman's right to reproduce, and no one else has the right to tell her how to use her body, and force her into dying because something not even human yet should live.

And what if you know that the baby is going to be horribly defected at birth? Do they deserve to live a life worse than death?

The potential for life isn't life, otherwise every guy who masturbates or every woman that has a period should be labeled as serial killers.

If an unborn is a human, then why doesn't the census count them? Why don't they have funerals for miscarriages? For that matter, why aren't woman who miscarriage tried for accidental manslaughter? Why do people say "we have two kids and one on the way" rather than "we have three kids." They. Are. Not. Human.

And I don't see -you- ever having to face this choice. You'll never have to expel a 10 pound object out of a tiny orifice on your body, the difficulty of which could cause an aneurysm in your brain that will kill you. You're trying to make a decision for an entire group of people on a subject you can never fully understand. What if a group of women voted that you had to have your balls removed if you had sperm that could cause birth defects?

And what? Are you really going to argue that women should just "have the baby anyway and give it up for adoption"? Yeah, because foster homes and orphanages aren't already over crowded. And again, that's really easy for someone to say that will never actually have to do it. Sorry, but mine and yours part in the "miracle" of life is incredibly small.

Completely ridiculous argument.

[Bond]

Well, like I believe I said, I made my post intentionally very brief. I'll respond to your points after work tomorrow, but...

I honestly have no idea how to respond to your post. You raised about twenty different issues. Do you want to just pick a few and extensively discuss them or have a generalized discussion?

[Vampyr]

Well, like I believe I said, I made my post intentionally very brief. I'll respond to your points after work tomorrow, but...

I honestly have no idea how to respond to your post. You raised about twenty different issues. Do you want to just pick a few and extensively discuss them or have a generalized discussion?

You can pick and choose whatever you want to discuss. But honestly, the only thing you could possibly say that would hold any validity would be

"I invented a way to make pregnancy not last 9 months, be completely painless, not leave the woman's body disfigured, guarantee no birth defects, guarantee the complete health and safety of the woman, and at the same time ensures that the mother will have enough money to completely take care of the child or it will definitely have another family that can take care of it, guaranteed."

And I'm going to go out on a limb and say that you can't say that.

Seriously, there's a reason I was able to come up with about 20 points in under 10 minutes, and all you're able to say is, "I think it's wrong."

[KillerGremlin]

Abortion is such a crazy topic to discuss. Abortion becomes, in my opinion, dumb to talk about from a religious platform. Here is why:

(foetus aka fetus - The medical term for the baby from eight weeks after conception until the birth.)


biological definition of an "abortion":

1. (Science: obstetrics) The premature expulsion from the uterus of the products of conception of the embryo or of a nonviable foetus. The four classic symptoms, usually present in each type of abortion, are uterine contractions, uterine hemorrhage, softening and dilatation of the cervix and presentation or expulsion of all or part of the products of conception.

The expulsion or removal of an embryo or foetus from the mother prematurely, this can be done as an artificial procedure, but it often happens naturally when the mothers body expels the foetus because it has died, has genetic or developmental defects, or because of infection or illness in the mother. Natural abortions are typically called miscarriages. Medically-induced abortions, which can be completed with surgery or with hormone drugs, are performed because the foetus is unwanted, deformed, not likely to live, or endangers the mothers life or health.

and, a simpler definition of an abortion:


1. Termination of pregnancy and expulsion of an embryo or of a fetus that is incapable of survival.
2. Any of various procedures that result in such termination and expulsion. Also called induced abortion.

and, here is wikipedia's quick summary of an embryo:

An embryo (from Greek: ἔμβρυον, plural ἔμβρυα, lit. "that which grows," from en- "in" + bryein "to swell, be full") is a multicellular diploid eukaryote in its earliest stage of development, from the time of first cell division until birth, hatching, or germination. In humans, it is called an embryo from the moment of fertilisation until the end of the 8th week, whereafter it is instead called a fetus.

The development of the embryo is called embryogenesis. In organisms that reproduce sexually, once a sperm fertilizes an egg cell, the result is a cell called the zygote that has all the DNA of two parents. The resulting embryo derives 50 percent of its genetic makeup from each parent. In plants, animals, and some protists, the zygote will begin to divide by mitosis to produce a multicellular organism. The result of this process is an embryo.

I figure these are important, factual biological terms that need to be understood to have this argument.

I bring up what science defines as an "abortion" for two reasons. One, abortions occur in nature, a lot. It's a natural thing and in many cases a good thing. There are reasons why a woman's body might expel a fetus, and many of them involve reasons like she is not prepared to have a child or the fetus is not in an environment that would promote healthy and good growth.

Then, there's the birth control pill. It seems, to me, that where people stand on the pill plays a fairly important roll in determining where they stand on the subject of abortion. In some regards, the pill does induce "natural" abortion effects. At least, one could argue, the pill could cause an abortion. Long story short, one thing the pill does is change hormonal levels in a female so that implantation cannot occur aka the fertilized egg never implants and it gets aborted via her period. Or, it can cause the fertilized egg to immediately be expelled after implantation, sort of like a "natural" miscarriage controlled by a change in hormone level induced by the pill. Of course, that is if the pill fails to accomplish step 1 and step 2, which is to suppress ovulation and to thicken the woman's cervical muscles so that sperm cannot reach the egg.

The only logical way to tackle abortion is to lay down some moral guidelines and to go from there. It's not a political issue at all; it is a science thing.

Some questions to ask are;
"when does life start? at DNA fertilization? when the embryo becomes a fetus?"
"what about nature causing natural abortions?"
"if you believe the pill is not morally reprehensible, can you logically oppose abortion?"

I'm going to try to tackle these in reverse order, and then offer my overall opinion on the subject. I don't believe there is an answer for the abortion question. I think people are complacent about birth control, and that's good enough for me. However, I think if more people knew that the pill could theoretically induce an abortion in the biological sense, I wonder if they would continue to use the pill. Asking this very question to a Christian-America strongly conflicts with my beliefs; there are enough stupid people breeding, we do not need any more. The pill is the answer and solution to teenagers and sex. It works. However, I wonder if some of the more intelligent people would draw the connection to nature and go, "well nature is a cruel thing, and if abortions occur on a pretty regular basis naturally, why not risk using the pill which has 2 steps before it which would prevent a "natural" induced abortion."

Personally, I do not feel that using the birth control pill is morally reprehensible. To me it does not really violate any moral guidelines (save for pseudo-ones invoked by the religious establishments). The odds of the pill inducing an abortion are very slim. Furthermore, the abortion induced would be very similar to the ones that occur naturally. A religious person might argue that there is no "natural" abortion, and that it is at the mercy of God, and by taking the pill we begin to play God. I always want to ask, "where does the naturally aborted embryo go, heaven?" I would like someone here to answer me this, according to Christianity, when does life begin? Or, I should say, when are we born into original sin. See, I always figured you couldn't go to Heaven if you didn't have original sin and if you didn't except God and Jesus. That's what they preach at my church. So, I figured in order to "be born" into original sin you need to be born to begin with. I don't understand what happens to a mesh of DNA that doesn't make it because nature didn't feel the woman was healthy enough for implantation.

That's all I will touch on for question one right now, I would like some info on the religion thing and maybe some feedback.

I guess I sort of answered question two as well. By the biological definition of an abortion, nature delves out a lot of abortions. However, the definition of abortion that biology gives does not preceed the one that we traditionally think of; which is some sort of medically induced procedure that goes on during pregnancy. At what point do I think abortion is morally permissible? Only when it occurs when a woman is taking the pill. I believe that while using birth control a woman is doing no more than tapping into something that occurs naturally. If a woman premeditates having an abortion during the first trimester it is still premeditated and wrong. She is taking the potential for life and destroying it. In my own mind, life begins at DNA fertilization, and I believe once implantation has occurred that embryo or fetus has the right to life.

To question number three..I believe life begins at DNA fertilization. After that point it doesn't matter what scientific term you want to describe the baby as. Yes, the baby. It will develop into a baby...from an embry to a fetus to a baby it is a living thing at that point.

So, I think that permitting the use of the pill is okay and actually great, because it essentially does what nature does if it has to; which it shouldn't, because it has 2 steps in place to prevent having to worry about it.

And actually, to cement the goodness of the pill, I read some studies that say that a fertilized egg does not implant 30%-60% of the time; so, if a woman was on the pill it would be hard to determine if it was nature or the pill preventing implantation.

However, once a girl is pregnant she knows she is pregnant and there is a living thing in there. And, if she decides to get an abortion, technically she is taking the potential for life away from someone.

Now, I am pro-choice. Why? Because I'm not a woman. Also, because if my girlfriend got pregnant I would be very conflicted. I don't know if I would want to have to worry about 9 months of pregnancy. I do believe that we should only allow first trimester abortions, particularly up to 8 weeks into pregnancy. After that the developing fetus starts to have brain impulses and it can feel pain. So, not only does abortion become murder but it kind of becomes cruel. I wish we could set up a system where if a woman does not abort in the first 8 weeks she gets locked into an adoption. You see, adoption is really a great solution to an unwanted pregnancy. What a lot of people don't know is that there are parents out there who do want kids but they can't have them. Making babies in a lab has a crazy failure rate. It is very difficult to have successful implantation of an egg into a woman who is having birth problems and have that egg stay planted.

There are exceptions, of course. If the health of the mother is compromised I feel that we should offer her the chance to have an abortion during later trimesters. Please note I said offer. I believe that choice should be up to the woman. I did read a heartwarming story about a mother who gave birth and died during birth to save her babies life. Now that's the type of mom that deserves admiration. Unfortunately, there is no way to set up a system that won't be abused that only allows first trimester abortions for everyone, and second and third trimester abortions for people who need it for reasons that are undeniable.

However, premeditated, unnatural abortion = morally reprehensible.
But, I am pro choice.

Weird, huh?

I hope I gave you guys some new perspectives and some new thoughts to wrap your mind around. I've taken a few philosophy classes and a few biology classes, and I'm actually intrigued by abortion. It is one of the few topics worth debating but one that I avoid debating because so many people are either uneducated or ignorant to different viewpoints on the subject.

[Combine 017]

If an unborn is a human, then why doesn't the census count them? Why don't they have funerals for miscarriages? For that matter, why aren't woman who miscarriage tried for accidental manslaughter?

Thats kind of what Bond is saying... I think.

And I think women should be able to get and abortion if they want to. Having a child is life changing thing, and if you can get rid of it with the false hope of "its not alive yet", then why not?

But what a woman gets raped? Shouldnt they have the choice of not wanting a complete strangers baby? Its not their fault someone sexually assaulted them and planted their seed.

[Bond]

Really. Really? Really. Most modern birth control is around 98% effective, which I guess is the same as 100%. Women enjoy being raped, too, anyone who has watched enough porn related to that fetish knows that. They willingly partake in it and there simply is no excuse if they complain should they become pregnant.
I don't understand what you're getting at. I don't believe I advocated rape? I apologize if that was the misconception.

It's embarrassing that someone with a thinking mind would call aborting a mass of cells not capable of thought as murder.
We are talking about the mass of cells that creates a human, correct? When do you think this mass of cells becomes a human? A month? Two months? Three months? ... ?

A few weeks before my last school year was out there was a huge protest on campus of "pro-life" people, which all these pictures of "babies dying", and all these signs up saying "Warning: Genocide" ahead. They compared it to the holocaust. One of the professors at my campus, who is Jewish and teaches the Holocaust said to one of the people, "How dare you compare this to the Holocaust."
I didn't compare abortion to the Holocaust?

And did you even consider a situation where having the baby could kill the mother? If my girlfriend and future wife were to be in this situation, I would surely choose her over an unborn.
Just because I didn't address this scenario doesn't mean I didn't consider it. As I stated, I intentionally kept my post brief. If the baby threatens the life of the mother then the baby is infringing upon the woman's life. This is a unique scenario which requires a unique course of action.

It is the woman's right to reproduce, and no one else has the right to tell her how to use her body, and force her into dying because something not even human yet should live.
I agree that it is a woman's right to reproduce, but along with that right comes a responsibility. The right of reproduction is tandem to the responsibility of producing life. For every right we have as humans we also have a responsibility. And again, you are using a unique scenario. If you would like to discuss unique scenarios that is fine, but we can't generalize from those unique scenarios.

And what if you know that the baby is going to be horribly defected at birth? Do they deserve to live a life worse than death?
In the question you are implying that there is a life worse than death - which is debatable. What is life? What is death? Wonderful philosophical questions.

The potential for life isn't life, otherwise every guy who masturbates or every woman that has a period should be labeled as serial killers.
That's actually not what I said. I believe I stated engaging in unprotected sex creates potential for life, not masturbation. Not sure if this was a misunderstanding or something else?

If an unborn is a human, then why doesn't the census count them? Why don't they have funerals for miscarriages? For that matter, why aren't woman who miscarriage tried for accidental manslaughter? Why do people say "we have two kids and one on the way" rather than "we have three kids." They. Are. Not. Human.
If a pregnant woman is murdered, why is the murderer charged with double homicide?


------------------------

After rereading your post, I can't help but think you took my post as a personal attack against you. In fact, I could feel the anger in your typing as I read. I hope you don't feel this way, as my intention was not to personally attack you, but rather to raise a discussion concerning abortion.

[KillerGremlin]

Having unprotected sex is a risk. It’s a risk that could produce a human, and that risk must be accepted, in fact, it is the responsibility of those engaging in unprotected sex to be aware of the possibility of a child – there is no excuse.

I'm just curious as to what reaction you are trying to evoke out of this statement. Nothing personal, it just sounds kind of like a jab. But, I'm probably misinterpreting it :p.


What of those who used faulty protection, those stupid enough to consider "pulling out" a form of birth control, or those whose doctors prescribed placebos instead of an actual contraceptive?

They [the male and female] should be entitled to reach a decision before the end of the first trimester and decide if they want to have an abortion or go through with the pregnancy. What they should not do is have an unwanted child and attempt to raise it in a chaotic environment. If the choices are
A) abortion
B) adoption
C) raise the kid in an unloving and abusive environment

I would personally prefer B) on my own moral grounds, but would accept both A) and B) as a better alternate to C).


If it were up to me they should be sterilized too; as people who have unprotected sex on a whim without considering the consequences are the type of people that perpetuate mass stupidity on this planet.

This is a semi-satirical critique. Don't quote me on that.

[Bond]

I'm just curious as to what reaction you are trying to evoke out of this statement. Nothing personal, it just sounds kind of like a jab. But, I'm probably misinterpreting it :p.
Honestly, just trying to get discussion going. I have a habit of making sentences which sound like jabs I suppose.

I read your post KG, and I agree with the majority of it, but I do have an issue I would like to raise with you. I believe you stated that you believe human life begins at the impact of DNA fertilization. So then you would consider the "mass of cells" after DNA fertilization to be a human, correct? So, if this "mass of cells" is a human, then don't you have to afford this human rights? Isn't this human entitled to liberties?

[KillerGremlin]

It's embarrassing that someone with a thinking mind would call aborting a mass of cells not capable of thought as murder. A few weeks before my last school year was out there was a huge protest on campus of "pro-life" people, which all these pictures of "babies dying", and all these signs up saying "Warning: Genocide" ahead. They compared it to the holocaust. One of the professors at my campus, who is Jewish and teaches the Holocaust said to one of the people, "How dare you compare this to the Holocaust."

I have to ask, what is the difference between a 1-year old and a 15-year old? The 1-year old is less developed, so certainly it is less entitled to life than the 15-year old, right? You haven't clearly stated where you stand on when life begins, but at DNA fertilization a human is indeed conceived. Maybe it's not called a baby yet, but it still has life or life potential. Killing that baby may not seem as squeamish as killing a man, but you essentially remove the potential for future life from that living thing, which is morally reprehensible according to MANY people, not just religious folk (I inject the religious folk thing because some people associate morals with religion, however many moral codes have absolutely nothing to do with religion. I just wanted to clarify that). However, by adding the "Holocaust survivor" bs to your statement, you are simply sensationalizing it in an effort to evoke some sort of sympathy out of your argument. It's a clever ploy but it's not going to work on me. I don't really give a rats ass what your professor did or what horrible suffering he went through, that has very little bound on the topic at hand, which is abortion.

Edit: It sounds like you got suckered into your professor's clever sensationalism too. Abortion, by some definitions, is comparative to ending a human life. Your professor has an easy topic to work with; the Holocaust was terrible, so certainly it must be worse than abortion. Your professor completely negated to have an argument. I hope your professor teaches a math or a science and not an English or philosophy or psychology class.



And did you even consider a situation where having the baby could kill the mother? If my girlfriend and future wife were to be in this situation, I would surely choose her over an unborn.

If the abortion is premeditated, that is to say, if the mother knows she is killing the baby, by many moral codes this is reprehensible. It is morally wrong. You are thinking in terms of reactions, not moral standards, and in a sense you are actually missing out on a great argument.


It is the woman's right to reproduce, and no one else has the right to tell her how to use her body, and force her into dying because something not even human yet should live.

This is a sensationalist argument, but certainly one that has some truths. I agree, if a woman has to choose between her life or her unborn child's she should be able to make that choice. What I can't agree with is that if she chose to abort that child that it would be morally permissible.


And what if you know that the baby is going to be horribly defected at birth? Do they deserve to live a life worse than death?

You aren't in a position to answer that question because you aren't deciding if you want to live or die. I can't answer that question either. But, I would hope that a parent would not make a morally reprehensible decision to abort their child because they found it it will be born with down syndrome. There is such a thing as adoption.

Edit: I am playing devil's advocate with this point, as I already stated in response to Bond that I put slightly different values on human life at certain times. However, it still remains morally reprehensible to have an abortion in my mind. I'm mainly trying to stimulate a reaction or argument from you, as I'm curious to where you stand and I think if you give some more thought into your statement you might write out a more interesting response.


The potential for life isn't life, otherwise every guy who masturbates or every woman that has a period should be labeled as serial killers.

This is absolutely NOT TRUE. Read the biology stuff I posted.


If an unborn is a human, then why doesn't the census count them? Why don't they have funerals for miscarriages? For that matter, why aren't woman who miscarriage tried for accidental manslaughter? Why do people say "we have two kids and one on the way" rather than "we have three kids." They. Are. Not. Human.

Again, read what I posted about abortions in nature :p


****

I don't want to nitpick, but if this is the path down which future arguments will go in this thread, I foresee this quickly heading the direction of our last politics thread.

[KillerGremlin]

Honestly, just trying to get discussion going. I have a habit of making sentences which sound like jabs I suppose.

I read your post KG, and I agree with the majority of it, but I do have an issue I would like to raise with you. I believe you stated that you believe human life begins at the impact of DNA fertilization. So then you would consider the "mass of cells" after DNA fertilization to be a human, correct? So, if this "mass of cells" is a human, then don't you have to afford this human rights? Isn't this human entitled to liberties?

This is a good question. You actually pinpointed the very flaw in my stance on abortion, which is that I believe a woman should be entitled to make the decision to have an abortion during the first trimester, but that it is morally reprehensible in my book. It is a contradiction. I even suggested that if my girlfriend got pregnant I would want her to get an abortion, but I can't answer that honestly because she's not pregnant. If at all possible I would maybe strive for the adoption.

But yes, I believe "human life" begins when DNA fertilization occurs. How could it not? Picking an arbitrary point during development and saying that at this point life begins is, to me, a non-logical argument. Humans continue to develop and grow until they are 21, or so most doctors would say. But, in reality, we continue to undergo biological changes until we die. Our cells constantly grow and die and replace themselves with new cells. To me, DNA fertilization marks the beginning of life in the sense that we know it as.

However, personally, I reserve some unique situations in which human life becomes less valuable. For instance, in the case of Terri Schiavo, I believe that the decision to pull the plug was an okay one. She was in a vegetative state where she felt no pain, had no conscience thoughts, and was essentially a vegetable. She was alive only by the definition that she was breathing and needed food. In my opinion, if the embryo does not have brain impulses and if it cannot feel pain (during the first trimester or most of it), it because slightly less morally reprehensible to abort than after the point at which it develops into a feeling, conscience being. You are still removing the potential for life from that embryo. Hence why it would fall into the category of being morally reprehensible. However, the embryo knows not of living in the sense that it is not a conscience being with brain impulses, so one could argue that it is "less bad."

I try not to bring terms like "less bad" into arguments, because that is a fool's argument. But, that's where I stand for now.

I feel that my gender puts me at a disadvantage to say "NO!" to all abortions. That's another part of it. I think, if I was a woman, I would feel more comfortable taking a stronger stance against abortion. I feel that everyone has their own moral plate, and they should be able to make some of their own decisions. They can live with their own moral guilt.

However, I am only 20, I am fairly liberal, and I'm still learning things everyday. I'm sure I will have different viewpoints in a year, or 5 years, or after I have kids and a family of my own.

But I do enjoy the positive argument you are facilitating, I hope more people contribute to this thread :).

[Combine 017]

I know how to solve this problem!

We just have to wait for The Combine to take over and put up a Suppression Field or until Salarians create the Genophage and use it on use. Thus solving the problem once and for all.

[Bond]

This is a good question. You actually pinpointed the very flaw in my stance on abortion, which is that I believe a woman should be entitled to make the decision to have an abortion during the first trimester, but that it is morally reprehensible in my book. It is a contradiction. I even suggested that if my girlfriend got pregnant I would want her to get an abortion, but I can't answer that honestly because she's not pregnant. If at all possible I would maybe strive for the adoption.
I see what you're saying, but...

But yes, I believe "human life" begins when DNA fertilization occurs. How could it not? Picking an arbitrary point during development and saying that at this point life begins is, to me, a non-logical argument.
Isn't saying it should be legal for women to have an abortion only during the first trimester putting an arbitrary timeline on the legality of abortion?

I very much so understand your contradiction, but I think we have to view this issue as a principle. If we can agree that human life begins at DNA fertilization, and we can agree that after DNA fertilization a human is created, I believe we have to protect that human's liberties. As I stated in my first post, it is essential for a government to protect the least among its citizens, including those who can not protect their liberties for themselves.

So, if after DNA fertilization we are considering this "thing" a human [terminology when talking about abortion is always tricky, haha], then how can we not refer to abortion as murder? It's also important to point out that mothers and doctors are legally responsible for unborn children. If one has to be legally responsible for this unborn child, then the unborn child is a legal entity - it has liberties.


Positive arguments with a goal of mutual agreements for the win!

[KillerGremlin]

I see what you're saying, but...


Isn't saying it should be legal for women to have an abortion only during the first trimester putting an arbitrary timeline on the legality of abortion?

I very much so understand your contradiction, but I think we have to view this issue as a principle. If we can agree that human life begins at DNA fertilization, and we can agree that after DNA fertilization a human is created, I believe we have to protect that human's liberties. As I stated in my first post, it is essential for a government to protect the least among its citizens, including those who can not protect their liberties for themselves.

So, if after DNA fertilization we are considering this "thing" a human [terminology when talking about abortion is always tricky, haha], then how can we not refer to abortion as murder? It's also important to point out that mothers and doctors are legally responsible for unborn children. If one has to be legally responsible for this unborn child, then the unborn child is a legal entity - it has liberties.


Positive arguments with a goal of mutual agreements for the win!

Well, from a moral standpoint I believe a first trimester abortion is not good. It is bad and it compromises the value of that embryo.

And, even from a legal, or strictly from a dictionary definition, aborting the embryo would indeed be murder.

I guess I'm saying in a way I'm pro-advocating murder, only with moral reprehension? That sounds horrible! haha.

But, again, the question I ask is does the value of this living thing change in certain situations. For instance, how do you feel about Terri Schiavo?

I don't think there is a perfect way for the government to tackle abortion. The government does not exist to debate moral issues. So, if I had two choices;
A) Allow all abortions
or
B) Do not allow abortions

I would vote for option B). However, by denying the right to have an abortion at all, the government is essentially denying the right to some mother's life. We can agree that some pregnancies will compromise the life of the parent. At which point, isn't the government essentially violating its own goal of protecting the right to human life?

What we really need is a judicial system for abortions, one that has a judge and jury that exist without bias, where they make decisions based on the unique situations presented to them. However, that will never happen, right?

As far as "liberties" go, the main one I'm concerned about is the right to life. That seems to be the only real applicable one to discuss, correct?

Edit:
By the way, if this has any value to you, if I was in a vegetative state where I was unconscious and I wasn't coming back, like Terri Schiavo, I would want my family to terminate my existence. I would not want to be that burden nor do I feel that my life would, at that point, have any value. I wouldn't even want to be frozen indefinitely until a cure was discovered, what value would my life have if I woke up hundreds of years later without my loving family? I bring this up as an example of me supporting that situation. Now, I wouldn't want to be aborted if I was in the first trimester of a mother wanting abortion. However, since I would not have had knowledge of my very existence in the first place, nor would I have felt pain, to me now as a living thing with a waking conscience it seems like a big loss, but the reality is it would not matter as much.

[Bond]

Well, from a moral standpoint I believe a first trimester abortion is not good. It is bad and it compromises the value of that embryo.

And, even from a legal, or strictly from a dictionary definition, aborting the embryo would indeed be murder.

I guess I'm saying in a way I'm pro-advocating murder, only with moral reprehension? That sounds horrible! haha.

But, again, the question I ask is does the value of this living thing change in certain situations. For instance, how do you feel about Terri Schiavo?
I suppose my point here is that the unborn human has an inherent right to his or her own destiny. One has the inherent freedom to live one's life as one sees fit (as long as, of course, it does not violate the inherent liberties of others). Humans have a right to take their own lives, it's a freedom we enjoy in a free society, but because unborn humans don't yet have that option, we can't decide for them. They have a right to control their own destiny. I don't want to interfere, and I don't think the government should want to either. But I do think the government should interfere to protect one's liberties - that's the very function of government.

Concerning Terri Schiavo, I don't know enough about that specific case to have an informed opinion or argument.

I don't think there is a perfect way for the government to tackle abortion. The government does not exist to debate moral issues. So, if I had two choices;
A) Allow all abortions
or
B) Do not allow abortions

I would vote for option B). However, by denying the right to have an abortion at all, the government is essentially denying the right to some mother's life. We can agree that some pregnancies will compromise the life of the parent. At which point, isn't the government essentially violating its own goal of protecting the right to human life?
I view this scenario as a unique one - in this scenario the mother's life is threatened by the baby, it's no longer simply the mother threatening the baby's life. Both the rights of the baby and mother could potentially be compromised. I don't have an easy answer...

[KillerGremlin]

See, I think that by making all abortions illegal you run into another moral dilemma.

Both your scenario and my scenario are flawed. In your scenario you might still get into an issue of mother's life vs. child's life

at which point you need to decide which life you value more

Or, you allow abortions in the unique situation that the mother's life is being compromised.

Just a fun thought...and, if you say it's okay to abort a child to save the mother's life, then one could argue you are violating a moral standard that is no worse than me saying that I'm advocating pro-choice first trimester abortions, or abortions in circumstances that will save a mother's life.

But you haven't said any of that, so we will see where this goes. :D

[Bond]

You're very right. I'll have to think on this some more and come up with a reply tomorrow.

[KillerGremlin]

I suppose my point here is that the unborn human has an inherent right to his or her own destiny. One has the inherent freedom to live one's life as one sees fit (as long as, of course, it does not violate the inherent liberties of others). Humans have a right to take their own lives, it's a freedom we enjoy in a free society, but because unborn humans don't yet have that option, we can't decide for them. They have a right to control their own destiny. I don't want to interfere, and I don't think the government should want to either. But I do think the government should interfere to protect one's liberties - that's the very function of government.

Concerning Terri Schiavo, I don't know enough about that specific case to have an informed opinion or argument.

I actually pretty much agree with you 100% from a moral standpoint. From a government standpoint, things get messy because we have a government and a society that likes to establish some rules and follow them. So, if we allowed some abortions in particular circumstances, even thought it might be morally reprehensible, the good might outweigh the bad? I don't really know. It's a good question, and something to ponder. And it drives my current stance of supporting pro-choice through the first trimester.


I view this scenario as a unique one - in this scenario the mother's life is threatened by the baby, it's no longer simply the mother threatening the baby's life. Both the rights of the baby and mother could potentially be compromised. I don't have an easy answer...

There is no easy answer. That's the brilliance of this argument. No one wins. This is why philosophy is an important subject (I always joke that is equally useless as well since it provides no concrete answers a lot of the time). This is the type of question I would like to ask a religious person, because I think it throws a curve ball at them. This is the type of question that makes these debates stimulating, and this is the type of question that divides crowds.

Some people don't even feel that it is debatable - the mother's life trumps all. Again, from a moral standpoint that doesn't work for me personally. In my own world though, if my future wife had to chose between her life or the baby's I would push with all my motivation for her to end the life of the baby. I would be fine dealing with the moral repercussions. But, as selfish as I am, it still would be her decision at the end of the day, and no matter how much I hated her for doing it, I would respect her decision if she chose the life of the child. I would be biter for the rest of my life.

[KillerGremlin]

I figured I'd summarize some of my thoughts and views and points:

*abortions occur in nature; that is the expulsion of an embryo that does not implant (Bond and I agree that the embryo marks the beginning of life)

*while this abortion is "natural" and it is not premeditated by the mother (unless she takes the pill, but that is debatable), it is still an abortion

*so, while a premeditated abortion is morally reprehensible on the grounds that it is premeditated, it still falls in line somewhere close enough to nature that it may not be SO bad

*also, I believe if the life of the mother is going to be compromised she should have the option to choose - her life, or her child's life. there is no clear moral winner here. she should be entitled to make the choice as it is her own moral thoughts guiding her.

Ideally, in my opinion, all abortions are indeed morally reprehensible. They conflict with the value of life of the embryo.

*I also stated that the value of life has some fluctuation depending on the situation, that is my own opinion and I expect people to disagree


So, what line can we draw in our government that allows the ultimate good for everyone? This, too me, is where this debate becomes challenging. Everything up to now falls in place through logical thought process or variations of opinion.

[Vampyr]

I apologize for my original non-cohesive post. I just get very angry on this subject, as I feel quite strongly that my opinion is absolutely the right one. There are a few positions I hold in life that I will never waiver on, this is one. The rights of gay people is another.

Most other topics I am open for influence on, including religion, foreign policies, economics, etc.

I'm currently working on a more structured argument that better represents my side.

[Vampyr]

We must first examine the role of a modern government. In the most basic sense, its role should be to protect its citizen’s civil liberties and security. The government, in order to be impartial, must protect the civil liberties of all of its citizens. Encompassed among this phrase “all citizens” is the least among us – the poor, the disabled, and the unborn. In fact, if the government cannot protect the least among us, how can we have confidence in our government?

Then is it not the governments responcibility to protect the rights and liberties of its women citizens? These women who are most definitely, unarguably, human. There is no gray line.

The largest fallacy I see in your argument, and the argument of every other pro-life person, is that you belittle the concept of pregnancy, you downgrade it and make it look like it's no big deal. Like anyone could do it with little effort, and that it won't cost them anything. Men make this assumption all the time. I can't think of a way to explain to you how serious, painful, and BIG OF A DEAL that pregnancy is. It's not something that just "happens", and it isn't cheap, and trying to raise a child is certainly not cheap. You just need to understand this. Talk to some women in your life that have given birth. Talk to some girls who haven't given birth yet, and see how they feel about the concept. More than likely terrified. That is why I feel that men have no right to make this choice, none.



I know the argument is often made as to when precisely this mass of cells becomes a true human, but I find this argument irrelative. The truth is we just don’t know, and frankly, we don’t need to know. Having unprotected sex is a risk. It’s a risk that could produce a human, and that risk must be accepted, in fact, it is the responsibility of those engaging in unprotected sex to be aware of the possibility of a child – there is no excuse.

---

I don't understand what you're getting at. I don't believe I advocated rape? I apologize if that was the misconception.

You pretty much did. Ninety percent of what you have written so far is not pro-life, it is anti-woman. You act like it's the woman's fault for getting raped. You act like they should just have the baby of a man who invaded their body, and not have second thoughts. Again, you have no idea what an ordeal pregnancy is, and you're letting a man who already possibly ruined her life just make it worse by giving her a baby she didn't even want.


We are talking about the mass of cells that creates a human, correct? When do you think this mass of cells becomes a human? A month? Two months? Three months? ... ?


I have to ask, what is the difference between a 1-year old and a 15-year old? The 1-year old is less developed, so certainly it is less entitled to life than the 15-year old, right? You haven't clearly stated where you stand on when life begins, but at DNA fertilization a human is indeed conceived.

Honestly, it depends. If you were immediately aware of being pregnant very shortly after it happened, then yes, I feel like you should have to decide within your first trimester; unless you were raped. Most women are afraid to tell anyone they were raped, because they think no one will believe them, and having to admit you're also pregnant just makes things even more terrifying. Once again, you're being anti-woman and assuming decisions like these are easy. You're not having any empathy -at all-. You're just spitting out words and acting righteous, but you never actually put yourself into the shoes of a woman facing this choice.

If the abortion is premeditated, that is to say, if the mother knows she is killing the baby, by many moral codes this is reprehensible. It is morally wrong. You are thinking in terms of reactions, not moral standards, and in a sense you are actually missing out on a great argument.


And sometimes the medical complications that could cause harm to the woman aren't known until further into the pregnancy. The above quote just further propagates the anti-woman philosophy that I'm talking about. Once again, you're not having any empathy. What right do you have to tell a woman she has to choose an unborn baby over her own life? What right do you have to tell someone she has to die? You have no right to take away a beautiful life from something that hasn't even started its yet.

You aren't in a position to answer that question because you aren't deciding if you want to live or die. I can't answer that question either. But, I would hope that a parent would not make a morally reprehensible decision to abort their child because they found it it will be born with down syndrome. There is such a thing as adoption.

Did anyone even read what I originally wrote about adoption? And stop acting like spitting a baby out of your body is something easy to do. I'm sick of hearing men say, "Eh, just have it and let someone adopt it." And no, I can't personally answer that question for everyone, but I think it's up to the parents. Personally I think it is cruel to do that to a person; to give them a half life.

This is absolutely NOT TRUE. Read the biology stuff I posted.


Really? A guy's sperm doesn't have the potential for life? A woman's egg doesn't have the potential for life? Even simple carbon has the potential for life. That's why potential life isn't life, just like potential energy isn't real energy. It just could be someday. Maybe.

If a pregnant woman is murdered, why is the murderer charged with double homicide?


Because they should be. That's a terrible way to argue this; you know why a murderer would be charged with double homicide. Because he killed a pregnant woman and we still live in a world where we don't go easy on those people.

I guess that lets me sum up when I think life begins: whenever the fetus becomes wanted by the mother, whenever she wants it to be her baby. After it's fully formed and waiting to be born, or after birth, it is a human regardless. I do think there should be a limitation on how long you could wait, but it needs to be longer than the first trimester, because of rape cases and because some women just do not realize their pregnant that fast. Some women have irregular periods, so when they miss one or two they don't really notice.

But, KG, if you really want to bring this back to nature, some mothers of certain species eat their born babies. So really, don't act like because natural abortions occur only during that very very very early stage that it means that's the only time its okay for a human to do it.

But I leave you with some closing comments:
Try to have some empathy for the women. Really consider how this is for them, and how they must feel with a bunch of men in Washington deciding for them. And if I get one response to this that says "It doesn't matter, it's morally wrong." Then I'm saying now that I'm done with this thread and this argument, because according to my moral code, -you- are wrong.

@Bond: Also, the government doesn't count an unborn as a citizen, as I mentioned with my "census" comment.

And finally, try to understand that being forced into an unwanted pregnancy can ruin the lives of most women, it can change things. I know that there is a member of GameTavern who would not be here if his mom had not had an abortion early in her life; it would have changed things completely. I won't say his name, unless he wants to come in and talk about it.

[Professor S]

The real question that needs to be decided is "When does life begin?" Once that question is answered, the rest of the questions become irrelevant.

If human life begins at conception, it doesn't matter if the mother was raped, a life is a life despite its origins. Also you can't get an abortion even the day afte becoming pregnant.

If human life begins at birth, then you can end the pregnancy at any point before the child exits the womb, making partial birth abortion morally and legally acceptable.

The problem is the real answer lies somewhere in between those examples, and that is where we may never find an answer.

Personally, I find it depressing that as I society when we can't define when a human life begin, we default to "kill it". In my mind, that ideology has bled out into other issues, such as the Terry Schiavo case. We couldn't determine whether or not she was truly living, and even her family disputed the case, but not knowing we defaulted to "kill her".

That is a depressing state of affairs.

[Vampyr]

The real question that needs to be decided is "When does life begin?" Once that question is answered, the rest of the questions become irrelevant.

If human life begins at conception, it doesn't matter if the mother was raped, a life is a life despite its origins. Also you can't get an abortion even the day after becoming pregnant.

If human life begins at birth, then you can end the pregnancy at any point before the child exits the womb, making partial birth abortion morally and legally acceptable.

The problem is the real answer lies somewhere in between those examples, and that is where we may never find an answer.

Personally, I find it depressing that as I society when we can't define when a human life begin, we default to "kill it". In my mind, that ideology has bled out into other issues, such as the Terry Schiavo case. We couldn't determine whether or not she was truly living, and even her family disputed the case, but not knowing we defaulted to "kill her".

That is a depressing state of affairs.

Technically, if we aren't sure they're living, we aren't defaulting to "kill it." We're defaulting to...remove it. It's not that we're bloodthirsty (even though we are) it's mostly because we don't want to accidentally cause more pain that something is already experiencing, and we don't want to make something live that might be better off dead, because in death there is absolution. We -know- when something is dead, there is no gray line, and we know they aren't feeling pain.

In terms of abortion, you're absolutely right about it depending on when human life begins, but due to all the factors that I've already mentioned, like rape, I cannot define human life as beginning upon conception. This would mean giving power to those who do not deserve it, it would mean putting an enormous burden onto women, something us men already have a bad track record with, and it would mean that every women who wishes she could have an abortion because she has been given an unwanted baby is a murderer at heart, and I just can't believe that. I can't label every one who has had an abortion as a murderer, because when you compare them to a real murderer...there is nothing similar.

[KillerGremlin]

The real question that needs to be decided is "When does life begin?" Once that question is answered, the rest of the questions become irrelevant.

If human life begins at conception, it doesn't matter if the mother was raped, a life is a life despite its origins. Also you can't get an abortion even the day afte becoming pregnant.

But...why not. Why can't we agree that life begins at conception but there would be some external circumstance in which we waver some moral concerns and allow people to have an abortion?

Personally, I find it depressing that as I society when we can't define when a human life begin, we default to "kill it". In my mind, that ideology has bled out into other issues, such as the Terry Schiavo case. We couldn't determine whether or not she was truly living, and even her family disputed the case, but not knowing we defaulted to "kill her".

I plan on signing some legal papers after I get married stating that if I end up in a vegetative state to pull my plug. I think it was fairly clear in the case of Terri Schiavo that her brain was dead. Your conscience is part of your physical brain...or maybe it's not. South Park did a good job poking fun at the Terri Schiavo thing, I'll just point you in that direction since it's a good espisode.

[Vampyr]

I plan on signing some legal papers after I get married stating that if I end up in a vegetative state to pull my plug. I think it was fairly clear in the case of Terri Schiavo that her brain was dead. Your conscience is part of your physical brain...or maybe it's not. South Park did a good job poking fun at the Terri Schiavo thing, I'll just point you in that direction since it's a good espisode.

Probably inappropriate, but this reminds me of an episode of Seinfeld where Kramer saw a movie about a woman going into a coma, and it was so scary to him that he couldn't finish it, and he decided that if that ever happened to him he wanted them to "pull his plug", so he got Elaine to go with him to sign a bunch of papers.

Later on he actually got to finish the movie, and at the end the woman comes out of her coma, and Kramer runs back to Jerry and is like "I didn't know you could come back!"

Pretty funny. :D >.>

[Professor S]

But...why not. Why can't we agree that life begins at conception but there would be some external circumstance in which we waver some moral concerns and allow people to have an abortion?

So not all lives are equal? Some are more important than others? No offense, but that opinion is just frightening.

I plan on signing some legal papers after I get married stating that if I end up in a vegetative state to pull my plug. I think it was fairly clear in the case of Terri Schiavo that her brain was dead. Your conscience is part of your physical brain...or maybe it's not. South Park did a good job poking fun at the Terri Schiavo thing, I'll just point you in that direction since it's a good espisode.

I've seen it, but I don't agree with it. There were several doctors who dod not agree with the "clear decision" that she was brain dead. The situation was a clear as mud.

[Professor S]

Technically, if we aren't sure they're living, we aren't defaulting to "kill it." We're defaulting to...remove it.

You don't know, so you default to it not being human. I don't know, and I default to it being a life. You proived my point.

It's not that we're bloodthirsty (even though we are) it's mostly because we don't want to accidentally cause more pain that something is already experiencing, and we don't want to make something live that might be better off dead, because in death there is absolution. We -know- when something is dead, there is no gray line, and we know they aren't feeling pain.

I'm having hard time understanding your point in the context of this discussion. What do you mean by talking about "pain"? Who is experiencing the pain? Life is pain? What does pain have to do with pregnancy and the discussion of abortion? Please explain.

And I never said abortion was bloodthirsty, I actually think its a pretty emotionless and dehumanizing procedure... it has to be for people to stomach it. I've had two friends who have had abortions, and they haven't really ever been the same since.

In terms of abortion, you're absolutely right about it depending on when human life begins, but due to all the factors that I've already mentioned, like rape, I cannot define human life as beginning upon conception.

What does the act of rape have to do with whether or not a child is alive? Using your explanation, if there were two pregancies, one conceived legitimately of love and one of rape, only one of them is a child? Why does the act of conception dictate how alive a child is?

This would mean giving power to those who do not deserve it, it would mean putting an enormous burden onto women, something us men already have a bad track record with, and it would mean that every women who wishes she could have an abortion because she has been given an unwanted baby is a murderer at heart, and I just can't believe that. I can't label every one who has had an abortion as a murderer, because when you compare them to a real murderer...there is nothing similar.

That's debateable. If a child is born and a person immediately killed it, wouldn't it be murder? That child can't support itself, but its murder.

So in the end, aren't we determining human life on intent of the parents instead of the life of the child? And in the end, isn't that a very dangerous way to think as we begin to say that life is only as valuable as we choose to define it?

[Vampyr]

You don't know, so you default to it not being human. I don't know, and I default to it being a life. You proived my point.



I'm having hard time understanding your point in the context of this discussion. What do you mean by talking about "pain"? Who is experiencing the pain? Life is pain? What does pain have to do with pregnancy and the discussion of abortion? Please explain.

And I never said abortion was bloodthirsty, I actually think its a pretty emotionless and dehumanizing procedure... it has to be for people to stomach it. I've had two friends who have had abortions, and they haven't really ever been the same since.


That first part of my post was actually all towards the vegetative state discussion.


What does the act of rape have to do with whether or not a child is alive? Using your explanation, if there were two pregancies, one conceived legitimately of love and one of rape, only one of them is a child? Why does the act of conception dictate how alive a child is?



That's debateable. If a child is born and a person immediately killed it, wouldn't it be murder? That child can't support itself, but its murder.

So in the end, aren't we determining human life on intent of the parents instead of the life of the child? And in the end, isn't that a very dangerous way to think as we begin to say that life is only as valuable as we choose to define it?

You're misunderstanding me. I'm saying that life cannot be defined as starting upon conception because that would make women who get abortions because they were raped and do not want the baby murderers. But that's just a general overstatement. So maybe I am saying that life is only as valuable as we choose to define it. I'm not sure what's dangerous about that, it's how we've always done things.

I don't believe that it is human life regardless, and I hold that women have the right to choose how their bodies are used. I hold that men shouldn't make that decision for them. I hold that a fetus isn't life. I think that the people making this decision are people who will never have to deal with the consequences, so it makes it easy for them. I hold that they do not have empathy, and are being self righteous.

[KillerGremlin]

The largest fallacy I see in your argument, and the argument of every other pro-life person, is that you belittle the concept of pregnancy, you downgrade it and make it look like it's no big deal. Like anyone could do it with little effort, and that it won't cost them anything. Men make this assumption all the time. I can't think of a way to explain to you how serious, painful, and BIG OF A DEAL that pregnancy is. It's not something that just "happens", and it isn't cheap, and trying to raise a child is certainly not cheap. You just need to understand this. Talk to some women in your life that have given birth. Talk to some girls who haven't given birth yet, and see how they feel about the concept. More than likely terrified. That is why I feel that men have no right to make this choice, none.

I don't think anyone disagrees that pregnancy is a burden, but, I don't think anyone disagrees that making the decision to take or give life is a burden as well.


Honestly, it depends. If you were immediately aware of being pregnant very shortly after it happened, then yes, I feel like you should have to decide within your first trimester; unless you were raped. Most women are afraid to tell anyone they were raped, because they think no one will believe them, and having to admit you're also pregnant just makes things even more terrifying. Once again, you're being anti-woman and assuming decisions like these are easy. You're not having any empathy -at all-. You're just spitting out words and acting righteous, but you never actually put yourself into the shoes of a woman facing this choice.

First off, if you read my earlier post you would have learned that I do believe we should extend abortions to the 2nd or 3rd trimester where the health of the mother is compromised. Whether or not rape qualifies as a good circumstance is debatable. And I do believe I extend my empathy towards women, as I already stated, I do not take a firmer stance on being anti-abortion because I am not a woman. I do not believe that you have any basis for labeling me anti-women, other than you want to create a diversion in this argument. This argument is about abortion, not woman's rights. We are discussing whether abortion is moral; is killing a living thing acceptable. And, we are arguing how it should be legislated. By calling me or Bond anti-women you are not making a concrete argument in favor or against abortion. Just like the Holocaust thing, this is not going to work on me or convince me about where you stand on abortion. Maybe you should be more empathetic for the embryo who has the potential to life and is going to be murdered?



And sometimes the medical complications that could cause harm to the woman aren't known until further into the pregnancy. The above quote just further propagates the anti-woman philosophy that I'm talking about. Once again, you're not having any empathy. What right do you have to tell a woman she has to choose an unborn baby over her own life? What right do you have to tell someone she has to die? You have no right to take away a beautiful life from something that hasn't even started its yet.

I never said that right off the bat a woman has to choose her life over the unborn baby. I just said it would be morally reprehensible by many moral standards, legitimate philosophy, to take the life of the baby. Again, if you read my earlier post you would see that I feel that we should extend the option to have an abortion to a woman in the unique situation where her life is compromised. However, again, you are not really presenting a strong argument, you are turning this into a "you are anti-women because you are making a philosophical argument." Right now this is not effective and I still feel you are reacting, not arguing.


Did anyone even read what I originally wrote about adoption? And stop acting like spitting a baby out of your body is something easy to do. I'm sick of hearing men say, "Eh, just have it and let someone adopt it." And no, I can't personally answer that question for everyone, but I think it's up to the parents. Personally I think it is cruel to do that to a person; to give them a half life.

Oh boy....this paragraph deserves the most deconstruction of all your points. I agree, having a child is stressful. I've agreed on that over your last 3 points, because apparently I'm anti-women and not empathetic towards their situation. Again, this plays a very small roll in the moral good or bad of aborting an embryo/fetus/baby.

Furthermore, I have seen many people with down syndrome. Who are you to say they have a "half life." That comment is horrible. Why can't a person with down syndrome enjoy the simple pleasures in life, eating, breathing, LIVING. You are putting some huge presumptions on your plate.


Really? A guy's sperm doesn't have the potential for life? A woman's egg doesn't have the potential for life? Even simple carbon has the potential for life. That's why potential life isn't life, just like potential energy isn't real energy. It just could be someday. Maybe.

I agree..sperm has life potential. But, a sperm unified with an egg which is DNA fertilization is life. At least in the sense that you perceive life. You started as an embryo. From that point forward your life potential took on new meaning.

[Vampyr]

I do not believe that you have any basis for labeling me anti-women, other than you want to create a diversion in this argument. This argument is about abortion, not woman's rights. We are discussing whether abortion is moral; is killing a living thing acceptable.

Then I'm done, since that is the sole basis of my stance. Don't accuse me of creating a diversion if you're going to pull everything I stand on out from under me and tell me it isn't an important part of the argument.

This debate wasn't nearly as interesting as the other one's we've had anyway, as there's no solution for this. At least the Economics thread had something of a resolution, this can never have that.

I'm done.

[Professor S]

That first part of my post was actually all towards the vegetative state discussion.

My argument hoilds for both cases. No one knew whether or not Terry was alive or dead, and there were experts on both sides... so in not knowing, we terminated her. Yay us.

You're misunderstanding me. I'm saying that life cannot be defined as starting upon conception because that would make women who get abortions because they were raped and do not want the baby murderers.

I understand you completely, but I fail to see how a life is dictated, even in part, by its conception. In that case, we should be able to use test tube babies for batting practice.

But that's just a general overstatement. So maybe I am saying that life is only as valuable as we choose to define it. I'm not sure what's dangerous about that, it's how we've always done things.

If you don't know why thats dangerous, I can't tell you.

[KillerGremlin]

So not all lives are equal? Some are more important than others? No offense, but that opinion is just frightening.

Indeed, to have this argument we still will end up at a point where we have to define what life is.

However, I present this analogy. Some people think that all things have some good. Living and nonliving. Some people think that only living things have good; this extends to the plants, the trees, the animals you eat. And, some people think a good is only intrinsic to things with a waking conscience. So, I ask, if something does not have a conscience or to a lesser extent is unaware of their good, do they have less value than the things that do?

Again, I believe that any form of abortion that is not the pill is morally reprehensible. The pill does what nature does by chance, only by tweaking hormones. However, I do not feel that I am in a position to deny all women the right to make the decision to have a first trimester abortion or to have an abortion in unique circumstances. In defense of my own contradiction, I do think to an extent life holds different value in certain situations. I'm not saying that there is a time when killing someone is okay; that's not what I said. However, if someone in an indefinite vegetative state or if some mindless mass of cells were to be compared to you or me, I think we could argue that there is a difference in value of life.



I've seen it, but I don't agree with it. There were several doctors who dod not agree with the "clear decision" that she was brain dead. The situation was a clear as mud.

This very well may be, and I cannot further this argument in an attempt to win so I ask a hypothetical question: what if she was brain dead and she was not coming back, then does it become morally permissible to do what they did? And, second, what if she was in agonizing pain during the entire time but we could not know? Did we do her a favor by taking her life?

[KillerGremlin]

Then I'm done, since that is the sole basis of my stance. Don't accuse me of creating a diversion if you're going to pull everything I stand on out from under me and tell me it isn't an important part of the argument.

This debate wasn't nearly as interesting as the other one's we've had anyway, as there's no solution for this. At least the Economics thread had something of a resolution, this can never have that.

I'm done.

The right of the woman baring the child is an important part of the argument. She should have some say, and again, for the third or fourth time now, this is why I am pro-choice and I cannot advocate a stance 100% against abortion.

However, for every woman who uses abortion as an escape from rape or to save her own life, I assure you there are just as many if not more using abortion as a form of post-sexual birth control. That alone should be a good reason to rethink your position.

[Professor S]

However, I present this analogy. Some people think that all things have some good. Living and nonliving. Some people think that only living things have good; this extends to the plants, the trees, the animals you eat. And, some people think a good is only intrinsic to things with a waking conscience. So, I ask, if something does not have a conscience or to a lesser extent is unaware of their good, do they have less value than the things that do?

That is why we talk about human life in abortion arguments and legal discussions, and not life in general.

Again, I believe that any form of abortion that is not the pill is morally reprehensible. The pill does what nature does by chance, only by tweaking hormones. However, I do not feel that I am in a position to deny all women the right to make the decision to have a first trimester abortion or to have an abortion in unique circumstances. In defense of my own contradiction, I do think to an extent life holds different value in certain situations. I'm not saying that there is a time when killing someone is okay; that's not what I said. However, if someone in an indefinite vegetative state or if some mindless mass of cells were to be compared to you or me, I think we could argue that there is a difference in value of life.

Thats why I believe that a set time needs to be agreed upon, like you said. The earliest abortion law was passed in the early 1800's, and it prohibited all abortions after the 4th month, and I am ok with that. Personally I am pro-life, but socially pro-choice to a point. I do not know when human life really begins, and I would not impose that ignorance on others. But at the same time, I think we can all agree third trimester abortions are pretty unethical.

That said, our current abortion law is terrible. Its far too subjective and placed WAY too much power in the opinions of people, rather than the law of the land, Subjectivity needs to be removed and clarity must be achieved. We are quickly approaching the time in science when humans will be able to create other humans, and if we do not do a better job of defining human life, I don't even want to think of the horrors that are possible.

This very well may be, and I cannot further this argument in an attempt to win so I ask a hypothetical question: what if she was brain dead and she was not coming back, then does it become morally permissible to do what they did? And, second, what if she was in agonizing pain during the entire time but we could not know? Did we do her a favor by taking her life?

The answer to that question is literally defined by the way in which she was allowed to die. Normally in brain dead situations, you do not kill someone, but rather remove life support and allow nature to take its course as they cannot breath on their own.

Terry was NOT on life support, she only required food and water. Essentially she was starved to death over several days. It was a unique situation. So if life is life, was allowing her to die from starvation and dehydration any better or worse than ignoring an infant until it dies of the same neglect?

The question of pain is subjective and I'm not going to play the game of whether or not I think she was in pain, as it only clouds an issue where we are trying to find clarity.

[KillerGremlin]

That is why we talk about human life in abortion arguments and legal discussions, and not life in general.

Well...humans are part of life in general. We're only special in the sense that we realize our place on this planet more so than anything else. Once you remove that thin line we are just animals; we eat, we sleep, we breed, we further our evolution.

But, I agree, on the subject of abortion we should try to stick to the subject of human life, so I will attempt to do that.



Thats why I believe that a set time needs to be agreed upon, like you said. The earliest abortion law was passed in the early 1800's, and it prohibited all abortions after the 4th month, and I am ok with that. Personally I am pro-life, but socially pro-choice to a point. I do not know when human life really begins, and I would not impose that ignorance on others.

Moral arguments withstanding, I think this is a logical approach to take on abortion. We are a race that relies on having standards in the establishment, and I've always felt that we need to advocate the determination of a point at which abortion no longer becomes okay. While it may conflict with some of my own moral or personal beliefs, it is the best way to approach this incredibly complex and difficult situation. I believe the first trimester marks a good cut-off point.

But at the same time, I think we can all agree third trimester abortions are pretty unethical.

Agreed, without a doubt.

That said, our current abortion law is terrible. Its far too subjective and placed WAY too much power in the opinions of people, rather than the law of the land, Subjectivity needs to be removed and clarity must be achieved. We are quickly approaching the time in science when humans will be able to create other humans, and if we do not do a better job of defining human life, I don't even want to think of the horrors that are possible.

I would be more open to subjective laws if we had a system that would let them work. As I jokingly asked to Bond, wouldn't it be nice if we had an unbiased Judge/Jury to investigate every abortion case?

As far as "humans making humans," I think you are referring to cloning? In which case, the cloning we have now still involves the clone to go through the birth process. So, the rules of abortion would still apply. Maybe one day we will be able to clone 40 year old person from scratch, but I doubt you or I will see that in our lifetime.

The answer to that question is literally defined by the way in which she was allowed to die. Normally in brain dead situations, you do not kill someone, but rather remove life support and allow nature to take its course as they cannot breath on their own.

Terry was NOT on life support, she only required food and water. Essentially she was starved to death over several days. It was a unique situation. So if life is life, was allowing her to die from starvation and dehydration any better or worse than ignoring an infant until it dies of the same neglect?

I don't think the infant comparison is fair per se. Natural selection would have removed Terri from this planet had humans not intervened. We had her hooked up to a feeding tube, or so I thought. The fact that she could not actually eat food herself makes this situation slightly different than starving an infant. And so, the situation becomes more complex just by this very detail. I don't really know what to say, other than that if I was in her state I don't' think I would want to be alive.

The question of pain is subjective and I'm not going to play the game of whether or not I think she was in pain, as it only clouds an issue where we are trying to find clarity.

true dat, I won't argue there.

[Bond]

Vampyr - I'm sorry you didn't like this discussion. I was going to reply to your reply, but if you're done with this thread, then I won't. I can't help but feel that you confused me with a right-wing-pro-life-wacko-nutjob, which, I assure you, I am not. The primary basis for my argument is the Constitution, not God's will. I would like to point out though that I do not support rape, am not anti-women, and never said that abortion is worse than the Holocaust. :)

KG - Here is my response to how to deal with legislation concerning abortion (assuming our agreements that we made last night):

First and foremost, I consider Roe v Wade unconstitutional. I believe abortion is a state, not a federal, issue. Therefore, I believe abortion should be decided state by state and the federal government should not legislate abortion. That being said, if I was a state legislator, this is the bill I would propose:

I would first state that life begins at the moment of conception. I would then cite Amendment XIV, Section 1 of the Constitution which states: "No State shall ... deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." I would then state that abortion is unconstitutional, when the mother's life is not threatened by the baby, given the agreement that: 1) life begins at conception and 2) the citation of Amendment XIV, Section 1 of the Constitution. This is an example of a government's fundamental responsibility to protect life, and to curtail violence.

I would then address situations where the mother's life is threatened by the baby. The government does not have a right to interfere in these situations. If the government were to decide one way or another (either against the mother, or against the child), the government is failing to protect the liberties of either the mother or the child, and is advocating violence.

Therefore, I believe the government should not interfere in situations in which the mother's life is threatened by the child. I believe it should be a decision between the mother, the father, and the doctor (ideally).

[Professor S]

Who determines when a mother's life is in jeopardy? A doctor who can decide whether or not the law is morally correct, and start a black market abortion clinic with excuse that the very act of giving birth is life threatening or just make up an affliction that threatens her life.

Once again, we end up in a mess. Thats why I think there needs to be sonme form of comprimise that is somewhat tolerable to both sides, or nothing will get accomplished. There has to be some steadfast law that will save many of the unborn, but also give pro-abortion people options and choices that they can tolerate.

Both sides need to give a little, or we will be stuck with Roe v. Wade forever, and not only is it unconstitutional, but is also horrible law as it is legislation from the bench. Law is specific, RvW is NOT.

[KillerGremlin]

This is true. There was an article about a pharmacist that wouldn't fill someone's birth control prescription because they didn't think it was moral. But, it's not the job of the pharmacist to have moral opinions. I believe the pharmacist worked for Meijers. Meijers could adopt a stance where they don't sell contraceptives, but they do sell them, so that pharmacist was way out of line.

[Jason1]

I dont understand why this is still an issue. Abortions are legal. Roe Vs. Wade. Killing people is illegal. Rape is illegal. This is America.

The sun will rise tomorrow.

Get over it people.

[BlueFire]

lolwat

[Professor S]

I dont understand why this is still an issue. Abortions are legal. Roe Vs. Wade. Killing people is illegal. Rape is illegal. This is America.

The sun will rise tomorrow.

Get over it people.

I actually had a really insulting response to this post, but I quickly realized there was no need.

[mickydaniels]

I actually had a really insulting response to this post, but I quickly realized there was no need.

I bet it had something to do with apathy.
Right?

[Professor S]

I bet it had something to do with apathy.
Right?

Apathy is a kind way to put it, I suppose.

[Jason1]

Oh please Professor, the only reason anyone posts topics of this nature is to stir people up. Admit it, you like acting like my opinion is crap and your shit dosent stink.

[uber_paddler]

French toast.

[Professor S]

Oh please Professor, the only reason anyone posts topics of this nature is to stir people up. Admit it, you like acting like my opinion is crap and your shit dosent stink.

Jason, quite honestly, how can you objectively think that way? Vampyr and I don't agree on abortion AT ALL, and yet we are able to have a constructive conversation on the topic. Xantar and I historically don;t agree on ANYTHING yet we have a cordial relationship going back YEARS and multiple forums. I don;t agree with them, but I respect his opinion because he took the time to reason it out and made thoughtful statements.

Meanwhile your idea of a political or social issue conversation is two sentences of emotion filled, knee jerk, thoughtless cliches in response to thoughtful opinion. Regardless of agreeing or disagreeing with my opinions, you will always have a explanation as to how I came to those opinions.

Whenever challenged as to what lies beneath your rhetoric, you simply state that you feel no need explain yourself but you have reasons. In my opinion, if your not willing to show anyone that your opinion is worth consideration, you should just simply stay out of the conversation. No one should consider an opinion simply because it happens to exist.

If you don't respect your opinions enough to test them, then they aren't worth the time it took for you to post them.

[KillerGremlin]

The reason politics are so messed up these days is because politicians don't know a damn thing about what they are talking about. I'd like to hear McCain or Bush attempt to explain the ramifications of abortion using Biological and Philosophical terms. Or, how about D-Bag Stevens, that guy thinks the Internet is a series of tubes.

Maybe if politicians weren't so ignorant we would have more funding towards valuable scientific research and maybe we would actually start to have a progressive western culture.

I can only dream. That's the problem with being apathetic about important topics like abortion.