Legal or Illegal: Abortion?

[Bond]

Originally Posted by KillerGremlin

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.

[Bond]

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

[KillerGremlin]

Originally Posted by Bond

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.

Originally Posted by Bond

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]

Originally Posted by Bond

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.

Originally Posted by KG

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.

Originally Posted by KG

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.

Originally Posted by Bond

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]

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.

[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.

[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.

[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.