Legal or Illegal: Abortion?

[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.