Legal or Illegal: Abortion?

[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.

[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 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?

[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.

[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.

[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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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

[mickydaniels]

Originally Posted by Professor S

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]

Originally Posted by mickydaniels

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.