Legal or Illegal: Abortion?

[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.

[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]

Originally Posted by 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 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.

[Professor S]

Originally Posted by Vampyr

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]

Originally Posted by Professor S

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.

[Professor S]

Originally Posted by Vampyr

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]

Originally Posted by Vampyr

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.

Originally Posted by Vampyr

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?

Originally Posted by Vampyr

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.

Originally Posted by Vampyr

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.

Originally Posted by Vampyr

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]

Originally Posted by KillerGremlin

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.

[KillerGremlin]

Originally Posted by Vampyr

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.

[KillerGremlin]

Originally Posted by 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.

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?

Originally Posted by Professor S

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]

Originally Posted by KillerGremlin

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. >.>

[Professor S]

Originally Posted by KillerGremlin

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.

[KillerGremlin]

Originally Posted by Professor S

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.

Originally Posted by Professor S

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?

[Professor S]

Originally Posted by KillerGremlin

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]

Originally Posted by Professor S

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.

Originally Posted by Professor S

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.

Originally Posted by Professor S

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

Agreed, without a doubt.

Originally Posted by Professor S

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.

Originally Posted by Professor S

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.

Originally Posted by Professor S

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.