I Am An Atheist And I Think Abortion Is Immoral

[Kahalachan]

I feel as if I'm one of the only ones here since it feels as if the fundie Christians are the only ones who speak out against it.

First let me make some very important distinctions.

Huge difference between "immoral" and "should be illegal"

Don't believe me?

I think cheating on your spouse is immoral but you should not go to jail for it. Such a person would more likely be socially ostracized.

Just as I think if a woman who is in her financial means of supporting a child, does not use protection, and opts for an abortion, should be looked down upon by me for considering such a thing.

Some criteria I feel are important:

Consciousness/Subjectivity:

Under the circumstance that a fetus is able to process at least one stimulus and said stimulus is able to influence the human at any other time, however slight, either consciously or unconsciously, abortion should always be illegal unless absolutely necessary to save the life of a mother.

Development:

During the stage when a human life becomes a fetus, abortion is immoral, save for extreme circumstances. Just as we would take certain scenarios to heart if someone cheats on their spouse. Maybe the wife of an angry drunk who is afraid to leave him finds consolation in the arms of another man. Different from just an ordinary slut cheating on her husband. The circumstance and environment matters.

No working neurons:

Under the circumstance that an egg is fertilized and within early embryonic stages, I don't care.

Late embryonic stages, early fetal stages, are still to me a grey area for moral consideration.



I find it repulsive that some pro-lifers pass around gross pictures meant to scare people into their morals. Abortion is a good moral subject and touches up on a lot of good moral questions. When is something considered a person? When should we kill human life? But people are so stupid about it.

This is an issue where we can rationally discuss things and use scientific evidence to make more informed choices, and no one does this. Grrrrrrrr.......:mad:

At myspace other atheists got all hissy with me and accused me of being a Christian, morons.

Ok sorry :p Went off on a tangent. Yes myspace is horrible for intellectual discussion, hence I'm here for that and glad I found the JREF ;)


What I find interesting is the Hippocratic Oath also forbids abortions.

I swear by Apollo the physician, and Asclepius, and Hygieia and Panacea and all the gods and goddesses as my witnesses, that, according to my ability and judgement, I will keep this Oath and this contract:


To hold him who taught me this art equally dear to me as my parents, to be a partner in life with him, and to fulfill his needs when required; to look upon his offspring as equals to my own siblings, and to teach them this art, if they shall wish to learn it, without fee or contract; and that by the set rules, lectures, and every other mode of instruction, I will impart a knowledge of the art to my own sons, and those of my teachers, and to students bound by this contract and having sworn this Oath to the law of medicine, but to no others.

I will use those dietary regimens which will benefit my patients according to my greatest ability and judgement, and I will do no harm or injustice to them.

I will not give a lethal drug to anyone if I am asked, nor will I advise such a plan; and similarly I will not give a woman a pessary to cause an abortion.

In purity and according to divine law will I carry out my life and my art.

I will not use the knife, even upon those suffering from stones, but I will leave this to those who are trained in this craft.

Into whatever homes I go, I will enter them for the benefit of the sick, avoiding any voluntary act of impropriety or corruption, including the seduction of women or men, whether they are free men or slaves.

Whatever I see or hear in the lives of my patients, whether in connection with my professional practice or not, which ought not to be spoken of outside, I will keep secret, as considering all such things to be private.

So long as I maintain this Oath faithfully and without corruption, may it be granted to me to partake of life fully and the practice of my art, gaining the respect of all men for all time. However, should I transgress this Oath and violate it, may the opposite be my fate.

Source:

http://www.nlm.nih.gov/hmd/greek/greek_oath.html

Ok so first, I am wondering if there are any other atheists whose morality is like mine.

Second, I would love to discuss this issue, which is rarely debated rationally, with reason and scientific evidence to back it up.

[Smackety]

I would think that a large majority of people would agree that abortion is not desirable, even immoral. This is irrelevant as it is a privacy issue. It is also irrelevant because abortion can not be prevented, it can only be made much safer for the woman by providing it in a clinic instead of an bathroom stall.
If you were a doctor who could perform a safe abortion, and you knew that if you refused the woman would attempt her own abortion with a metal clothes hangar, how would you decide?

[ixolite]

Just as I think if a woman who is in her financial means of supporting a child, does not use protection, and opts for an abortion, should be looked down upon by me for considering such a thing.
What about the father? It takes two to dance, right?

[Zep]

I don't think you would find too many people advocating abortion as a regular contraceptive. On the contrary, it is not a step that any woman would take lightly, nor would she not feel emotionally involved in what was happening. It's a very big hurdle.

However the facts of the matter are that once the decision is made by the woman, an abortion will be procured by some means, legal or otherwise. In the past, when not legal, it was the backyard or self-induced. This often led to sepsis and death, at least while antibiotics were not available. More recently, the procedures have been refined, and the hygiene and sepsis control significantly improved. But that has not made the procedure any less traumatic...

The only issue for others to decide is whether to make the procedure safe, minimally intrusive and hygienic...or not. I would vote for making the procedure safe. The decision to proceed or not is another issue again...

[Nihilus]

I would think that a large majority of people would agree that abortion is not desirable, even immoral. This is irrelevant as it is a privacy issue. It is also irrelevant because abortion can not be prevented, it can only be made much safer for the woman by providing it in a clinic instead of an bathroom stall.
If you were a doctor who could perform a safe abortion, and you knew that if you refused the woman would attempt her own abortion with a metal clothes hangar, how would you decide?
Echo.

Obviously, it's repulsive to think that some women may just use abortion as a post hoc means of contraception...but I can't imagine that it's ever an easy decision to make.

On the converse side of things, I think there's an equal repulsion for women who are clearly unfit to have a child who choose to take their pregnancy to term anyways.

[Nihilus]

What about the father? It takes two to dance, right?
Are you suggesting the responsibility should fall to the father if the mother is not interested, or that the father should have some post-sex decision into the potential birthing process?

[Seismosaurus]

Personally I support the right to have abortions for whatever reason the woman involved wants to have one. For me the overriding principle is that it's her body, and she has an absolute right not to have things in it that she doesn't want to have there. Even if I believed that the foetus was a human with all the mental capacity and rights of an adult, I would still support abortion for that reason.

I recognise that that this would be regarded by many as an extreme viewpoint. I am comfortable enough with the current laws allowing for abortion up to a certain point.

[HeidiHo]

I have always wondered why so many of the same people who object to abortion as birth control seem to have issues with hate crimes as thought crimes. Isn't it the act itself, not the thought behind it? (Not saying any of you think this, but in reference to others I have discussed this with).

Also, whether anyone wants to admit it or not, abortion is birth control; it is a method of controlling whether one gives birth. I think that abortion should have a punch card like coffee, buy four get one free.

As a woman who is vehemently pro-choice, I am also am willing to admit that advances in science are making the issue more complicated. When it becomes possible to transplant a 20 week fetus into another woman's uterus, abortion of said fetus will seem horrific.

For now however, as a woman, a parent, and a person who works with rape victims and domestic violence victims, I am 100% comfortable with abortion in the first trimester. I become increasingly more uncomfortable as pregnancy progresses.

[Mobyseven]

What about the father? It takes two to dance, right?

Also to have sex, which is the usual method of conception in most places. Notable exceptions are Brazil, where the lambada is preferred, and Yorkshire, where nobody has sex.

[Magenta]

It's my body and my choice. End of story. Patronising idiots and their ideas about "morality" are irrelevant.

[ixolite]

Are you suggesting the responsibility should fall to the father if the mother is not interested, or that the father should have some post-sex decision into the potential birthing process?
The father should have some pre-sex decision, as he brings 50% into it. If BOTH fail to contracept and choose abortion as the easy way out, both of them have equal fault/immorality. (And yes, in the ideal case the father should have something to say, as it is his would-be-child too (except in cases of i.e. rape).) The OP just reminded me of the old "Woman, you get pregnant, so it's your problem."-argument, hence the question.

[Alt+F4]

Just as I think if a woman who is in her financial means of supporting a child, does not use protection, and opts for an abortion, should be looked down upon by me for considering such a thing.

What if the woman is poor and the condom broke? Does that make an abortion less immoral, in your point of view?

For those who object to abortion, whatever their reason, this is what I say: If you're opposed to abortion, don't have one!

If your reply is, "Well I'm a man". Then my answer is, "There you go."

[Cainkane1]

If a woman is raped and gets pregnant she is within her rights to have an abortion. If her life is at risk she is entitled to an abortion. A woman who has consentual sex and gets pregnant as a result should have the baby and if she doesn't want it give it to someone who does through legal channels.

[HeidiHo]

If a woman is raped and gets pregnant she is within her rights to have an abortion. If her life is at risk she is entitled to an abortion. A woman who has consentual sex and gets pregnant as a result should have the baby and if she doesn't want it give it to someone who does through legal channels.

. . . please let them know these views.

[Cactus Wren]

During the stage when a human life becomes a fetus, abortion is immoral, save for extreme circumstances. Just as we would take certain scenarios to heart if someone cheats on their spouse. Maybe the wife of an angry drunk who is afraid to leave him finds consolation in the arms of another man. Different from just an ordinary slut cheating on her husband. The circumstance and environment matters.

Translation: "Abortion is immoral unless I feel sorry for the pregnant woman."

What I find interesting is the Hippocratic Oath also forbids abortions.

It most assuredly does no such thing.

I will not give a lethal drug to anyone if I am asked, nor will I advise such a plan; and similarly I will not give a woman a pessary to cause an abortion.

A PESSARY. This was a SPECIFIC and dangerous way of triggering abortion. This single method is mentioned in the Hippocratic Oath; others, ranging from pennyroyal to silphium to the Lacedaemonian Leap, are not. Thus, it is false to say that "the Hippocratic Oath forbids abortions".

And even if it did, so what? Your quoting of the entire Oath is interesting: it does invoke numerous Greek gods, it forbids physicians from performing surgery ("I will not use the knife"), and it requires the oath-taker to teach his instructors' sons free of charge. The Hippocratic Oath is irrelevant to the practice of modern medicine.

[Wolfman]

This is an area where I have some problems deciding for myself what I think is right.

I have no problems with abortion, up to a certain point...I guess that would be when the fetus reaches the point that it could survive viably outside of the womb (and I'd even argue that it would be the point where it would have at least a 50% chance of surviving viably outside of the womb).

I most definitely have problems with those who advocate abortion right up until the point the infant is delivered. What, at 10:00 a.m., when it is still inside the woman, it is not considered a human, and can be killed just because she decides it is undesirable, or she's changed her mind? But five minutes later, after it's been delivered, suddenly it is a human, and killing it would be murder?

No, I don't go for that.

My own personal opinion would tend to be like this:

During the initial stages of pregnancy, I have no problems whatsoever with abortion, and feel that women should have every right to have an abortion done, without needing permission from anyone else (parents, the baby's father, etc.).

If the pregnancy continues to the point where the fetus would have a 50% or greater chance of surviving outside of the womb, the situation changes. The mother has had lots of chances before this to have an abortion done, and has chosen not to do so. At this point, she must live with that decision. The fetus is now identifiably a human, an individual and distinct human entity, and deserving of protection as such.

If there are situations where the pregnancy threatens the mother's life, or it is discovered there is a situation that severely threatens the fetus (ie. a genetic condition that would result in it dying soon after birth, or living an inevitably painful life), then abortion should be allowed, although preferably with some degree of counseling.

I'd also make some allowances for extenuating situations...where it can be demonstrated that there is some sort of significant psychological trauma involved in the equation. But overall, such situations are relatively rare (if there are such severe psychological factors involved, odds are the fetus will have been aborted before it reaches this age).

I am a firm believer in a woman's right to control her own body; but that right becomes complicated when there are two distinct human lives and bodies involved.

[bjornart]

I'm an atheist, and I don't consider abortion immoral with the current time limits. Developed neurons just doesn't do it for me.

People do have rational scientific discussions on this, I seem to remember having had them here, but even if you do use rational arguments and scientific evidence, when discussing moral and ethics it all comes down to opinions and feelings in the end.

[Jekyll]

Consciousness/Subjectivity:

Under the circumstance that a fetus is able to process at least one stimulus and said stimulus is able to influence the human at any other time, however slight, either consciously or unconsciously, abortion should always be illegal unless absolutely necessary to save the life of a mother.



Can I ask where this rule came from? If we enforced it across the board we wouldn't be able to kill slugs or flowers.

Or does "processing a stimulus" mean more than just reacting?

[dannagain]

I feel as if I'm one of the only ones here since it feels as if the fundie Christians are the only ones who speak out against it.

First let me make some very important distinctions.

Huge difference between "immoral" and "should be illegal"

Don't believe me?

I think cheating on your spouse is immoral but you should not go to jail for it. Such a person would more likely be socially ostracized.

Just as I think if a woman who is in her financial means of supporting a child, does not use protection, and opts for an abortion, should be looked down upon by me for considering such a thing.

Some criteria I feel are important:

Consciousness/Subjectivity:

Under the circumstance that a fetus is able to process at least one stimulus and said stimulus is able to influence the human at any other time, however slight, either consciously or unconsciously, abortion should always be illegal unless absolutely necessary to save the life of a mother.

Development:

During the stage when a human life becomes a fetus, abortion is immoral, save for extreme circumstances. Just as we would take certain scenarios to heart if someone cheats on their spouse. Maybe the wife of an angry drunk who is afraid to leave him finds consolation in the arms of another man. Different from just an ordinary slut cheating on her husband. The circumstance and environment matters.

No working neurons:

Under the circumstance that an egg is fertilized and within early embryonic stages, I don't care.

Late embryonic stages, early fetal stages, are still to me a grey area for moral consideration.



I find it repulsive that some pro-lifers pass around gross pictures meant to scare people into their morals. Abortion is a good moral subject and touches up on a lot of good moral questions. When is something considered a person? When should we kill human life? But people are so stupid about it.

This is an issue where we can rationally discuss things and use scientific evidence to make more informed choices, and no one does this. Grrrrrrrr.......:mad:

At myspace other atheists got all hissy with me and accused me of being a Christian, morons.

Ok sorry :p Went off on a tangent. Yes myspace is horrible for intellectual discussion, hence I'm here for that and glad I found the JREF ;)


What I find interesting is the Hippocratic Oath also forbids abortions.

I swear by Apollo the physician, and Asclepius, and Hygieia and Panacea and all the gods and goddesses as my witnesses, that, according to my ability and judgement, I will keep this Oath and this contract:


To hold him who taught me this art equally dear to me as my parents, to be a partner in life with him, and to fulfill his needs when required; to look upon his offspring as equals to my own siblings, and to teach them this art, if they shall wish to learn it, without fee or contract; and that by the set rules, lectures, and every other mode of instruction, I will impart a knowledge of the art to my own sons, and those of my teachers, and to students bound by this contract and having sworn this Oath to the law of medicine, but to no others.

I will use those dietary regimens which will benefit my patients according to my greatest ability and judgement, and I will do no harm or injustice to them.

I will not give a lethal drug to anyone if I am asked, nor will I advise such a plan; and similarly I will not give a woman a pessary to cause an abortion.

In purity and according to divine law will I carry out my life and my art.

I will not use the knife, even upon those suffering from stones, but I will leave this to those who are trained in this craft.

Into whatever homes I go, I will enter them for the benefit of the sick, avoiding any voluntary act of impropriety or corruption, including the seduction of women or men, whether they are free men or slaves.

Whatever I see or hear in the lives of my patients, whether in connection with my professional practice or not, which ought not to be spoken of outside, I will keep secret, as considering all such things to be private.

So long as I maintain this Oath faithfully and without corruption, may it be granted to me to partake of life fully and the practice of my art, gaining the respect of all men for all time. However, should I transgress this Oath and violate it, may the opposite be my fate.

Source:

http://www.nlm.nih.gov/hmd/greek/greek_oath.html

Ok so first, I am wondering if there are any other atheists whose morality is like mine.

Second, I would love to discuss this issue, which is rarely debated rationally, with reason and scientific evidence to back it up.

I basically agree with you. Most abortions are immoral but should not be illegal.
And I'm an Atheist. So snap!

[HeidiHo]

Should this penis result in ejaculation that leads to conception, fetus hosting will be required for a minimum of thirty-five, but preferrably forty, weeks, during which time you will be expected to eat nutritiously, abstain from alcohol, cigarettes, caffeine, soft cheeses, and tuna. Should you choose not to enter into this contract after erection is achieved, be aware that you will still be expected to provide hand and/or mouth release of said penis.

[Fiona]

Personally I support the right to have abortions for whatever reason the woman involved wants to have one. For me the overriding principle is that it's her body, and she has an absolute right not to have things in it that she doesn't want to have there. Even if I believed that the foetus was a human with all the mental capacity and rights of an adult, I would still support abortion for that reason.

I recognise that that this would be regarded by many as an extreme viewpoint. I am comfortable enough with the current laws allowing for abortion up to a certain point.

Seconded.

It seems to me that the use of another person's body without their consent is, in every other context, largely recognised to be indefensible. We do not demand that you give up an organ to someone who needs it if you are the only possible donor. You may do so, and you may be applauded for doing so: but you are not required to do so. I do not see the difference. Perhaps some of you can explain it to me.

[Undesired Walrus]

Despite all the common arguments for abortion, by far the most compelling one for me is that the tiny little cells are simply not a human being. And any sadness expressed over the lost Mozarts or Becketts would really have to mourn again every time such potential is prevented by the awaiting arms of a condom.

'My body, my right' is, in my opinion, a very poor argument.

[Undesired Walrus]

double

[Wolfman]

Seconded.

It seems to me that the use of another person's body without their consent is, in every other context, largely recognised to be indefensible. We do not demand that you give up an organ to someone who needs it if you are the only possible donor. You may do so, and you may be applauded for doing so: but you are not required to do so. I do not see the difference. Perhaps some of you can explain it to me.Up to a certain point, I'd agree with your argument.

But a fetus that is at 8 or 9 months? It is in your body...but it is a distinct human entity.

Again, as I said above, in my earlier argument -- I have problems with a position that says a fully viable human entity that still happens to be inside the womb does not qualify as "human", and has no right to any protection; yet if, only five minutes later, it is delivered from that body, suddenly it becomes "human", and killing it would be murder.

Your liver, kidney, or any other part of your body is an integral part of your body -- remove them from your body, and they cannot exist on their own. They have exactly the same genes as you, they are biologically part and parcel of you.

The baby has entirely different genes than you. From a purely scientific, biological point of view, it is a completely separate entity. Something that is "part of your body" shares your genetic code. If it has a different genetic code, then it is a different body.

The fact that I'm "a man" always makes this more difficult -- the automatic charge is, "Well, you're a man, you'll never have to face such a situation, so you have no right to comment on it." However, I'd point out that I'm not black, and will never face situations of racism from people who hate blacks -- that doesn't disqualify me from commenting on it, or offering my own arguments as to the morality of it.

[Undesired Walrus]

This is an area where I have some problems deciding for myself what I think is right.

I have no problems with abortion, up to a certain point...I guess that would be when the fetus reaches the point that it could survive viably outside of the womb (and I'd even argue that it would be the point where it would have at least a 50% chance of surviving viably outside of the womb).

I most definitely have problems with those who advocate abortion right up until the point the infant is delivered. What, at 10:00 a.m., when it is still inside the woman, it is not considered a human, and can be killed just because she decides it is undesirable, or she's changed her mind? But five minutes later, after it's been delivered, suddenly it is a human, and killing it would be murder?

No, I don't go for that.

My own personal opinion would tend to be like this:

During the initial stages of pregnancy, I have no problems whatsoever with abortion, and feel that women should have every right to have an abortion done, without needing permission from anyone else (parents, the baby's father, etc.).

If the pregnancy continues to the point where the fetus would have a 50% or greater chance of surviving outside of the womb, the situation changes. The mother has had lots of chances before this to have an abortion done, and has chosen not to do so. At this point, she must live with that decision. The fetus is now identifiably a human, an individual and distinct human entity, and deserving of protection as such.

If there are situations where the pregnancy threatens the mother's life, or it is discovered there is a situation that severely threatens the fetus (ie. a genetic condition that would result in it dying soon after birth, or living an inevitably painful life), then abortion should be allowed, although preferably with some degree of counseling.

I'd also make some allowances for extenuating situations...where it can be demonstrated that there is some sort of significant psychological trauma involved in the equation. But overall, such situations are relatively rare (if there are such severe psychological factors involved, odds are the fetus will have been aborted before it reaches this age).

I am a firm believer in a woman's right to control her own body; but that right becomes complicated when there are two distinct human lives and bodies involved.

I've nominated this. Terrific and original argument.

[Fiona]

@ Wolfman. Yes, I agree it is a distinct human entity and therefore it should get the same rights as any other human entity. That does not include the right to use anyone else's body without their consent.

Much is made of he viability of the foetus and this is often adduced to continually reduce the time at which abortion can be a choice. This is illogical. If it is viable then let it vie. It is not demonstrated that most women who wish to have an abortion want the foetus to die: if you can put it in a jar on your sideboard and let it grow that way then that is fine. I know that at the current state of knowledge that this is not the ideal situation for a foetus, but then neither is extreme poverty the ideal situation for a baby: we do not as a society choose to ensure that all babies are in ideal circumstances so what is the difference? For me the only difference I can see is that one individual woman's rights can be denied and it doesn't cost you or anybody else very much.

I say again: the use of another's body without consent is an enormously immoral act. That pregnancy is the only situation where this is not acknowledged suggests to me that a woman is in this sense not seen as fully human with all the rights that go with that.

[Wolfman]

I've nominated this. Terrific and original argument.Oh great...if ever there was a post I did not want more attention drawn to, it would probably be this one! Now I'm gonna' have a whole slew of people descending on me to inform me of what a chauvinistic and bigoted male I am, just another arrogant man seeking to impose his paternalistic views on women, without ever having to worry about the ramifications, since I'll never get pregnant.

*sigh*

Let the killing begin.

[Wolfman]

@ Wolfman. Yes, I agree it is a distinct human entity and therefore it should get the same rights as any other human entity. That does not include the right to use anyone else's body without their consent.

Much is made of he viability of the foetus and this is often adduced to continually reduce the time at which abortion can be a choice. This is illogical. If it is viable then let it vie. It is not demonstrated that most women who wish to have an abortion want the foetus to die: if you can put it in a jar on your sideboard and let it grow that way then that is fine. I know that at the current state of knowledge that this is not the ideal situation for a foetus, but then neither is extreme poverty the ideal situation for a baby: we do not as a society choose to ensure that all babies are in ideal circumstances so what is the difference? For me the only difference I can see is that one individual woman's rights can be denied and it doesn't cost you or anybody else very much.

I say again: the use of another's body without consent is an enormously immoral act. That pregnancy is the only situation where this is not acknowledged suggests to me that a woman is in this sense not seen as fully human with all the rights that go with that.Fiona,

So you would also argue, I assume, that after a baby is born, you should also be allowed to "put it in a jar on your sideboard and let it grow that way"? That's your definition of "viability"?

And you didn't really answer my question...please clarify.

You believe, I assume, that a baby that has actually been delivered, is no longer inside the mother's body, and is alive...is deserving of all legal protections and rights that extend to any other human being? That it would/should be wrong/immoral/illegal to kill it, or to simply allow it to die through inaction? That a woman who gave birth a child, and then subsequently took that infant and bashed its head in, would be committing an immoral and illegal act?

I assume that you'll agree with me on all of those points.

Yet, apparently, you would argue that five minutes before that point, the decision to end its life would be entirely moral and acceptable?

A baby that is seven months old, delivered prematurely but kept alive and healthy in an incubator, is a full human and deserving of all moral/legal considerations that we extend to every other human being; but that a baby that is nine months old, far more developed, but still inside its mothers wombs, deserves neither moral or ethical considerations, and should be considered no different than removing a liver, or a tumor?

[The skepTick]

I don't believe religion has a monopoly on morality. So, saying you're an atheist and that you also believe abortion is immoral is no different than saying you're an auto mechanic and you believe abortion is immoral. However, I also believe that you can more accurately argue the pros and cons of abortion if you are an atheist simply because you remove all religious flavoring from the discussion and can objectively focus on the morals.

This forum is doing just that and is more meaningful that many other discussions I have seen.

[The skepTick]

I don't believe religion has a monopoly on morality. So, saying you're an atheist and that you also believe abortion is immoral is no different than saying you're an auto mechanic and you believe abortion is immoral. However, I also believe that you can more accurately argue the pros and cons of abortion if you are an atheist simply because you remove all religious flavoring from the discussion and can objectively focus on the morals.

This forum is doing just that and is more meaningful that many other discussions I have seen.

[The skepTick]

Hmmm...anyone know how to delete a post?:o

[Tricky]

Hmmm...anyone know how to delete a post?:o
You can't. You can only edit it to say something like "duplicate post" or "oops" or something.

And I presume your name is a tribute to me. Thanks.

[Lisa Simpson]

Should this penis result in ejaculation that leads to conception, fetus hosting will be required for a minimum of thirty-five, but preferrably forty, weeks, during which time you will be expected to eat nutritiously, abstain from alcohol, cigarettes, caffeine, soft cheeses, and tuna. Should you choose not to enter into this contract after erection is achieved, be aware that you will still be expected to provide hand and/or mouth release of said penis.


I've not seen a penis that could fit all those words tattooed onto it, but it is quite funny nonetheless.

[Bikewer]

Throughout history, in all cultures that I'm aware of, women have used either abortificants,
mechanical means of abortion, or have used infanticide to solve the problem of unwanted offspring.
There might not be sufficient resources to raise the child, life circumstances might make pregnancy/child rearing unsupportable, or the infant itself might be suffering from developmental problems.

I'm in the camp that does not see any great problem with this. We might well think less of a woman who has careless sex and uses abortion as a sort of delayed contraception, but that's her choice.
I have a very hard time equating a zygote or fetus at nearly any stage of development as a human being. Potentially, yes. The loss of a pregnancy where the developing child is wanted and desired is tragic.
Abortion foes are fond of pointing out that the heart beats at this stage of development, and there is measurable brain-wave activity at that stage, and so forth. However, I don't think there is any researcher indicating any sort of conscious thought on the part of the developing infant until after birth.

As many others have pointed out, I wonder why the anti-abortion folks are also so down on the means of preventing unwanted pregnancy. Comprehensive sex education, contraception, and so forth.
Seems like the idea would be to prevent unwanted pregnancy, rather than abortion. Of course, some have made the point that "pro-life" is actually an "anti-sex" movement.

[Tricky]

Wolfman's argument, while well-written, was hardly original. The morality of abortion will always hinge upon the question of "when is a baby a human". Viability is one way of drawing the line, though viability varies widely, depending on when and where the baby is born. Higher brain function is another (the one I prefer) but it too is very hard to draw a clear line. The thing about conception is that it is an easy and clear line to draw, but I think it is quite wrong to call a fertilized egg a human.

But it is your own morality which decides when the baby is human. In some cultures, a child is not considered human untill some time after birth, and the parents have every right to kill unwanted newborns, especially females (http://www.vday.org/contents/violence/glossary/infanticide).

No, I don't agree with this, but it illustrates how differently people can draw the line.

[Wolfman]

Wolfman's argument, while well-written, was hardly original. The morality of abortion will always hinge upon the question of "when is a baby a human". Viability is one way of drawing the line, though viability varies widely, depending on when and where the baby is born. Higher brain function is another (the one I prefer) but it too is very hard to draw a clear line. The thing about conception is that it is an easy and clear line to draw, but I think it is quite wrong to call a fertilized egg a human.

But it is your own morality which decides when the baby is human. In some cultures, a child is not considered human untill some time after birth, and the parents have every right to kill unwanted newborns, especially females (http://www.vday.org/contents/violence/glossary/infanticide).

No, I don't agree with this, but it illustrates how differently people can draw the line.Tricky,

Agreed on both counts; I was reiterating an argument I've heard used before, actually by both theists and atheists.

And you are completely correct about the morality issue; the minority group I work with, the Mosuo, do not consider a person to be "human" (and have a soul) until they reach puberty. These days, this does not lead to the killing of unwanted infants; but according to their own mythology, in the past, the killing of a child before they reached puberty was considered on par with the killing of any other animal.

I don't believe it is an issue that can be empirically determined; morality is, and always will be, subjective.

[Fiona]

Fiona,

So you would also argue, I assume, that after a baby is born, you should also be allowed to "put it in a jar on your sideboard and let it grow that way"? That's your definition of "viability"?

Why would you do that? Babies born at term or shortly before don't need to go in a jar.

And you didn't really answer my question...please clarify.

Sorry, which question?

You believe, I assume, that a baby that has actually been delivered, is no longer inside the mother's body, and is alive...is deserving of all legal protections and rights that extend to any other human being?

Yep


That it would/should be wrong/immoral/illegal to kill it, or to simply allow it to die through inaction? That a woman who gave birth a child, and then subsequently took that infant and bashed its head in, would be committing an immoral and illegal act?

Yep.

I assume that you'll agree with me on all of those points.

Yep

Yet, apparently, you would argue that five minutes before that point, the decision to end its life would be entirely moral and acceptable?

The decision is not to end its life. The decision is to stop it using her body without consent. If it dies that is a shame, as it is a shame if the person who needs your kidney or whatever dies. But at very shortly before term I do not think it needs to die. I might be wrong

A baby that is seven months old, delivered prematurely but kept alive and healthy in an incubator, is a full human and deserving of all moral/legal considerations that we extend to every other human being; but that a baby that is nine months old, far more developed, but still inside its mothers wombs, deserves neither moral or ethical considerations, and should be considered no different than removing a liver, or a tumor?

See above

[Wolfman]

Why would you do that? Babies born at term or shortly before don't need to go in a jar. Exactly.

Yet you still argue that babies that have reached full term (or just before), but have not actually been delivered, should still be aborted? The decision is not to end its life. The decision is to stop it using her body without consent. If it dies that is a shame, as it is a shame if the person who needs your kidney or whatever dies.
If you are talking about actually delivering the baby, and then seeing if it is viable, I'd generally agree with you. However, when we are talking about abortion, we are not talking just about "removing the fetus". We are talking about killing the fetus first, and then removing it.

And in regards to the "using her body without consent" thing, I'd say that if you've gone seven or eight months, you've implicitly given your consent. You've had more than enough time to decide before this that it is unwanted, and you want to get rid of it. Its not as if you suddenly, at seven months, go, "Oh my god, there's a baby inside of me! How did that get in there!! I never gave permission for that!!"

As I said initially -- I have no problem whatsoever with early term abortions. Go ahead and do it, you won't hear a peep from me, and in fact I will vocally fight for your right to do it.

But late term pregnancies? At seven, or eight, or nine months? Your own arguments are entirely illogical and inconsistent...you talk about "not killing it", and "just see if it can survive on its own", entirely ignoring the fact that an abortion removes entirely any chance for the fetus to "survive", because you kill it before it is ever removed.

If you want to argue that a woman in the last few months of her pregnancy should have a right to have a caesarian section done, and the baby removed alive...then I might agree with you. Then your "see if it can survive" argument has some merit. But your arguments make no sense whatsoever when the procedure we are discussing requires the killing of the fetus before it is removed.

[JWideman]

It is more immoral to give birth to a child and resent it for the rest of its childhood, constantly telling it you could have had a career.

[Tricky]

the minority group I work with, the Mosuo, do not consider a person to be "human" (and have a soul) until they reach puberty.
So those strange things happening in my groinal area was actually me filling up with... soul?
:D

Seriously though, it really must be strange, difficult, and precarious to work with people whose morality differs so greatly from yours.

[Wolfman]

So those strange things happening in my groinal area was actually me filling up with... soul?
:D

Seriously though, it really must be strange, difficult, and precarious to work with people whose morality differs so greatly from yours.Precarious...no.

Difficult, strange, confusing, frustrating...yes. It will, in fact, be the subject of a talk I hope to give at TAM 6, if my paper is accepted. And I've just finished giving a specific example of this in another thread (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=108986) (post number 28, if you want to see it) about atheism; a situation where trying to present rational, scientific beliefs is complicated because it is the "woos" (non-skeptical) individuals who tend to believe me most easily, while the "skeptics" (those who are more rational and logical) are the ones who are generally most resistant and most difficult to convince.

Requires a very different mindset and approach.

[Rufo]

I'm not sure I want to get involved in the debate, since I don't have that safe, completely convinced opinion many appear to have, but maybe this can contribute anyway.

@ Wolfman. Yes, I agree it is a distinct human entity and therefore it should get the same rights as any other human entity. That does not include the right to use anyone else's body without their consent.
A baby and even a child needs someone to support them long after birth. If someone has a child, then decides to abandon it, leaving it to a certain death and does so purely because they no longer wish to nurse it or work to bring food to it - because they no longer wish the child to use their body to support itself - is that different? Is that immoral? Do we have no more responsibility for our own children than for someone who requires an organ donation from us?

Please note that I'm not exclusively talking about a mother refusing to nurse her baby here - this might as well be a father who walks out on his child.

And in regards to the "using her body without consent" thing, I'd say that if you've gone seven or eight months, you've implicitly given your consent. You've had more than enough time to decide before this that it is unwanted, and you want to get rid of it. Its not as if you suddenly, at seven months, go, "Oh my god, there's a baby inside of me! How did that get in there!! I never gave permission for that!!"
You seem to be assuming a sophisticated society wherein the woman had knowledge about the consequences of having the child and could easily have gotten a safe abortion at any time during her pregnancy. You also seem to be assuming that no other factors effect her decision, such as her living conditions or conditions for bringing up the child changing drastically. I can easily imagine a scenario where no abortion was available until the seventh month, or where a completely unforeseeable event justifies a different decision.

[Wolfman]

You seem to be assuming a sophisticated society wherein the woman had knowledge about the consequences of having the child and could easily have gotten a safe abortion at any time during her pregnancy. You also seem to be assuming that no other factors effect her decision, such as her living conditions or conditions for bringing up the child changing drastically. I can easily imagine a scenario where no abortion was available until the seventh month, or where a completely unforeseeable event justifies a different decision.I'd happily consider exceptions for "special case" scenarios -- however, in by far the majority of cases of pregnancy in developed countries, the situations you describe are not going to be a factor.

[X]

I'm an atheist and I do not find abortion to be moral.

To me, it seems that once the egg is fertilized and attached to the wall of the uterus, it has a chance to live its own life. Artificially ending that chance, barring immediate threat to the life of the mother is, to me, wrong.
Perhaps my opinion is born out of ignorance on the real mechanisms of preganancy, but that's why they are only my opinions. They can change as I learn more.

Ultimately, however, whether or not I agree with the abortion is a motto point.
I fully support a womans right to choose, and I won't think any less of them if they choose abortion. My opinions, as a man, are irrelevant to the matter. Unless the child is mine (unlikely, given my lack of a track record), in which case they count for whatever weight you want to give it when comparing 9 months of pregnancy on the woman's side to 9 months without on the man's side.

[Undesired Walrus]

;3531774']I'm an atheist and I do not find abortion to be moral.

To me, it seems that once the egg is fertilized and attached to the wall of the uterus, it has a chance to live its own life. Artificially ending that chance, barring immediate threat to the life of the mother is, to me, wrong.


But if that is the reasoning, is it not therefore manslaughter when the mother has a miscarriage (I know you are not one of these 'abortion is murder' people, but I think it makes a point all the same)?

[Fiona]

Exactly.

Yet you still argue that babies that have reached full term (or just before), but have not actually been delivered, should still be aborted?
If you are talking about actually delivering the baby, and then seeing if it is viable, I'd generally agree with you. However, when we are talking about abortion, we are not talking just about "removing the fetus". We are talking about killing the fetus first, and then removing it.

And in regards to the "using her body without consent" thing, I'd say that if you've gone seven or eight months, you've implicitly given your consent. You've had more than enough time to decide before this that it is unwanted, and you want to get rid of it. Its not as if you suddenly, at seven months, go, "Oh my god, there's a baby inside of me! How did that get in there!! I never gave permission for that!!"


As I said initially -- I have no problem whatsoever with early term abortions. Go ahead and do it, you won't hear a peep from me, and in fact I will vocally fight for your right to do it.

But late term pregnancies? At seven, or eight, or nine months? Your own arguments are entirely illogical and inconsistent...you talk about "not killing it", and "just see if it can survive on its own", entirely ignoring the fact that an abortion removes entirely any chance for the fetus to "survive", because you kill it before it is ever removed.

If you want to argue that a woman in the last few months of her pregnancy should have a right to have a caesarian section done, and the baby removed alive...then I might agree with you. Then your "see if it can survive" argument has some merit. But your arguments make no sense whatsoever when the procedure we are discussing requires the killing of the fetus before it is removed.

Late abortion can and is done by induction of labour. I have no problem with that and I take it neither do you?

In any case third trimester abortion is very very rare, and it generally only done for serious medical reasons. I do not think in principle there is anything wrong with it but practically it is undesirable and it is a bit of a red herring

ETA. I do not accept for one moment that a person cannot change her mind about consent at any point. Do you support rape on the grounds that she said no quite late? Do you say that a person who is married cannot decide against sex with their spouse because they gave consent 10 years ago, or whatever? That is quite a traditional position but I cannot see it holds any water either.

[Wolfman]

Late abortion can and is done by induction of labour. I have no problem with that and I take it neither do you?
If we are talking about a situation where the baby comes out alive, and is given the same treatment that any other child who had been delivered at that age would receive, then no, I would not have an objection to that.

Perhaps we need to clarify terminology here. I consider "abortion" to mean "termination" of a pregnancy. I do not consider the delivery of an infant -- even if by induced labor -- to be "termination". My sister had to have labor induced during her first pregnancy, due simply to the fact that it was not happening naturally. Nobody considers that to represent "abortion" or "termination" of a pregnancy.

In all of my comments above, you should consider any references I make to abortion to represent a procedure in which A) the baby is killed as a part of the procedure, or B) the medical care provided to the baby after its delivery is less than that which would be had it been delivered as the result of natural processes.

[Wolfman]

ETA. I do not accept for one moment that a person cannot change her mind about consent at any point. Do you support rape on the grounds that she said no quite late? Do you say that a person who is married cannot decide against sex with their spouse because they gave consent 10 years ago, or whatever? That is quite a traditional position but I cannot see it holds any water either.Sorry...I don't understand your argument here.

I absolutely agree that a woman has the right to change her mind about having sex at any point. Regardless of whether you are married or not.

But I do not think that a woman can have sex with a man willingly, get pregnant, carry the baby for months, and then retroactively decide that "Oh, no, I didn't want to have sex."

Rape is rape. It is completely wrong, in every situation. No woman should be forced to have sex, and I support completely the right of a woman who's been raped to have an abortion (which I have previously stated, in fact).

You talked about red herrings...well, this is a complete strawman argument. You're trying to claim a position that I have never said, and that I do not believe, and paint me in a negative way by trying to draw some correlation between my opposition to late-term pregnancies, and some imagined support of rape.

I had some respect for you up to this point, although I didn't agree with some of your comments; but from this point on, intend to simply ignore you, as this is a disgusting and entirely unwarranted attempt to try to paint me as something I am not.

Good bye.

[Fiona]

A baby and even a child needs someone to support them long after birth. If someone has a child, then decides to abandon it, leaving it to a certain death and does so purely because they no longer wish to nurse it or work to bring food to it - because they no longer wish the child to use their body to support itself - is that different? Is that immoral? Do we have no more responsibility for our own children than for someone who requires an organ donation from us?

Please note that I'm not exclusively talking about a mother refusing to nurse her baby here - this might as well be a father who walks out on his child.


You have run a number of arguments together here so it is quite hard to answer this coherently: if I fail bear with me and I will try to sort it out

No I don't think we do have any more responsibility for a foetus than for someone who needs an organ. We have the same responsibility. Nobody can require us to allow another human being to use our bodies, though we may choose to let them in either case. I cannot see the problem here: either a foetus is a human being and it has exactly the same rights as other humans; or it is not and it does not. In neither case is there any right to use another's body without consent.

The case of the infant is quite different. It is incumbent on all of us to take action to preserve life where we can. This also applies to all human beings. The case of the infant who is knowingly left to starve or freeze is immoral: so is the case of, for example, the injured adult if we do not ensure that we summon assistance or otherwise take steps to ensure survival; and that adult subsequently dies of hypothermia. I do not see anything wrong with putting a baby up for adoption or allowing relatives to care for it; and I do not see anything wrong with making sure the injured adult gets to a hospital.



You seem to be assuming a sophisticated society wherein the woman had knowledge about the consequences of having the child and could easily have gotten a safe abortion at any time during her pregnancy. You also seem to be assuming that no other factors effect her decision, such as her living conditions or conditions for bringing up the child changing drastically. I can easily imagine a scenario where no abortion was available until the seventh month, or where a completely unforeseeable event justifies a different decision.

Here I agree with you. But this concedes the point that a woman has less human rights than everybody else and I do not buy it. I do not see why any human being should have to make a case for a concession to ensure that another does not make use of their body, so while this is within the framework Wolfman puts forward it is not adequate to this debate, for me

[Fiona]

I am sorry you take what I said in that way because I was not attributing what you read into it. To me these situations are analogous.


Sorry...I don't understand your argument here.

I absolutely agree that a woman has the right to change her mind about having sex at any point. Regardless of whether you are married or not.

But I do not think that a woman can have sex with a man willingly, get pregnant, carry the baby for months, and then retroactively decide that "Oh, no, I didn't want to have sex."

This confuses me. The decision to have an abortion is nothing whatsoever to do with the decision to have sex. She is not retroactively deciding she "didn't want to have sex": she is deciding in the here and now that she does not want a baby.

Rape is rape. It is completely wrong, in every situation. No woman should be forced to have sex, and I support completely the right of a woman who's been raped to have an abortion (which I have previously stated, in fact).

You have stated it but my problem is I cannot see why. I am sorry Wolfman but this makes not sense to me at all. It seems to me that you are arguing for the right to abortion if the woman can be seen as a victim within your moral framework. A number of things are possibly underpinning this and perhaps you can explain which ones are in play for you?

You talked about red herrings...well, this is a complete strawman argument. You're trying to claim a position that I have never said, and that I do not believe, and paint me in a negative way by trying to draw some correlation between my opposition to late-term pregnancies, and some imagined support of rape.

Nothing in my post suggested you support rape. You said you did not and from what I have seen of you here and elsewhere that is entirely in keeping with what I would expect. I was asking why the decision to change your mind about having a baby is, by your lights, different from the decision not to have sex, having previously consented. As I said, in the past this was precisely the argument which was used to deny the existence of marital rape. I did not make it up. It is not fanciful. And I honestly cannot see why previous consent, as you described it, is relevant in the case of abortion either. You see some difference: I don't. Perhaps you can show me a relevant difference but at the moment I see that in both cases someone is allowed to use another's body without consent and that is what is relevant in my world view

I had some respect for you up to this point, although I didn't agree with some of your comments; but from this point on, intend to simply ignore you, as this is a disgusting and entirely unwarranted attempt to try to paint me as something I am not.

Once again I am sorry you took it that way but it is not what I meant and it is not, so far as I can see, what I said. Read it again (if I am not already on ignore): the questions at the end of the post were questions: rhetorical questions as it happens since I was confident of your answer. That may have been wrong of me but they do not say what you seem to think

[X]

But if that is the reasoning, is it not therefore manslaughter when the mother has a miscarriage (I know you are not one of these 'abortion is murder' people, but I think it makes a point all the same)?

No. Miscarriages happen. They are tragic, certainly, but they are not the result of a choice of man or woman to end a pregnancy. It would be pointless to argue against something people had no choice in.

[Wolfman]

All right...I will put it down to a misunderstanding, then.

I think -- if I am getting this right? -- that you are attempting to equate the following two situations:

1) Situation one -- a woman initially consents to have sex with a man, but then at some point changes her mind, and no longer consents. If the man tries to force her to have sex at this point, it is wrong. And the woman has the right to change her mind, and withdraw consent, at any time during the sexual act.

2) Situation two -- a woman initially 'consents' to have a baby, by not having an abortion. But then, at some later point, she changes her mind, and no longer consents. She should therefore have the right to change her mind at any time during the pregnancy.

If this is a correct assessment of your argument, my response would be that I do not see the two situations as analogous. In the former situation, you are talking about a case where stopping sex results in harm to nobody; but continuing results in harm to the woman. In the latter situation, it becomes more complicated, because changing your mind also results in harm to the baby. I do not believe that the two situations are equivalent.

Please keep in mind that my comments really only refer to late-term (7 months or later) pregnancies. As you stated, late-term pregnancies are uncommon. But I do think that a pregnancy reaches a point where the 'rights' of the baby deserve consideration also. It is no longer a matter of one person, or one body. It is two distinct people, and two distinct bodies.

Specifically in regards to late-term pregnancies, where that pregnancy represents a demonstrable threat -- physical or psychological -- to the mother, I'd support that the mother's 'right' exceed those of the infant inside of her. But where no such threat exists, and the mother has simply changed her mind, then I'd argue that the 'rights' of the baby exceed those of the mother.

[Fiona]

Wolfman: Thank you for accepting my explanation. It does have the merit of being true :)

On topic. First - I see you equate abortion with the death of the foetus. As I said earlier, I do not think it is necessary to conclude that a woman who wants an abortion also wants the death of the foetus, though that might in fact be a consequence of her decision. What she wants is precisely the "termination" of the pregnancy and that is not the same as the "termination" of the foetus: I think that it is useful that we have sorted that out. For myself induced labour or C-Section is a preferred mode of abortion particularly in the case of late intervention and I do not see why any other method would be chosen, so long as there is no medical contra-indication.

We then come to your latest post and I think we may have to differ. I want to ask you (and I really hope you will not take this the wrong way) two things:

n the former situation, you are talking about a case where stopping sex results in harm to nobody; but continuing results in harm to the woman.

In what does the harm consist in this case? I would contend that the harm arises from the use of the woman's body without her consent. Of course there may be physical harm as well, but childbirth may also result in that: it is not wholly pain and risk free even in developed countries. But you may conceptualise the harm differently and so I would like to know where you see the harm in situation 1 in your post.

Secondly

where that pregnancy represents a demonstrable threat -- physical or psychological -- to the mother, I'd support that the mother's 'right' exceed those of the infant inside of her. But where no such threat exists, and the mother has simply changed her mind, then I'd argue that the 'rights' of the baby exceed those of the mother.

I am interested in how you can balance the rights of two fully human beings in this way. I confess I am assuming that you also do not think we should be able to force organ donation even where there will be no long term damage to the donor and where the recipient will definitely die if the transfer does not take place? I may be wholly wrong in that.
__________________

[dglas]

Here, fence. Nice comfy fence.

Negotiate away.

:popcorn6

[The skepTick]

You can't. You can only edit it to say something like "duplicate post" or "oops" or something.

And I presume your name is a tribute to me. Thanks.

Dammit! I knew I had an evil twin out there!

[Akhenaten]

It's my body and my choice. End of story. Patronising idiots and their ideas about "morality" are irrelevant.

I quoted you because you said what I wanted to, but I'm a bloke, so it wouldn't have sounded right. Thank you. :)

Having said that, and in order to address the OP, I'm an atheist who doesn't have a moral viewpoint on abortion at all. For one thing, I don't see any relationship between my lack of religion and my morality (such as it is), and for another, as Magenta quite rightly points out, I'd be a patronising idiot to think it was any of my business.

One thing brought out in the OP that I do find disturbing though, is the wording of the Hippocratic Oath

I swear by Apollo the physician, and Asclepius, and Hygieia and Panacea and all the gods and goddesses as my witnesses, that, according to my ability and judgement, I will keep this Oath and this contract:


Great Zeus! Is that fair dinkum? If doctors are relying on gods and godesses as witnesses, I refuse to get sick.

[Wolfman]

In what does the harm consist in this case? I would contend that the harm arises from the use of the woman's body without her consent. Of course there may be physical harm as well, but childbirth may also result in that: it is not wholly pain and risk free even in developed countries. But you may conceptualise the harm differently and so I would like to know where you see the harm in situation 1 in your post.I'd generally agree with your description that the harm arises from the use of the woman's body without her permission.
I am interested in how you can balance the rights of two fully human beings in this way. I confess I am assuming that you also do not think we should be able to force organ donation even where there will be no long term damage to the donor and where the recipient will definitely die if the transfer does not take place? I may be wholly wrong in that.
__________________I cannot give any hard and fast rules for this. However, I do believe that consideration for both lives is valid. An argument that only the woman's body or rights deserve consideration, while the infant's deserve none, is abhorent to me.

If one wants to consider it as a scale, one that must be carefully adjusted and weighed for each specific situation, with the needs/rights of both the mother and the infant being considered each time, and a decision being made based on that, I would go along with that (although obviously there might sometimes be some disagreement as to how each side should be weighed).

But if one wants to entirely exclude the child from the equation, and argue that its life or body have no place in the discussion, it is purely determined by the whims of the mother, regardless of her reasons...then I have problems.

[qayak]

I feel as if I'm one of the only ones here since it feels as if the fundie Christians are the only ones who speak out against it.

First let me make some very important distinctions.

Huge difference between "immoral" and "should be illegal"

I don't see what the big deal is. Many, many atheists and theists I know feel the same way you do. I am one of those atheists. I don't think abortion is right for me, which is why I will never have one . . . well, that and the fact that I am the wrong gender to have one but you get my meaning.

The point is, abortions are wrong for me which has nothing to do with anyone else. I think they should be freely avbailable for anyone wanting one.

Just as I think if a woman who is in her financial means of supporting a child, does not use protection, and opts for an abortion, should be looked down upon by me for considering such a thing.

There is much more to having a child than the financial means to support one. Some people have no desire to have one and they should never be forced to because someone else thinks it is immoral for them to terminate.

I think the few, and I mean very few, woman who possibly use abortion as a method of contraception are a necessary side effect of keeping abortions freely available.

The other issue I have with your statement is that you are looking for justification for seeing yourself as morally superior to someone who does what you don't like. How do you know that someone who is financially able to support a child didn't use protection? How do you know why another person chose to have an abortion? How do you even know that they did? Medical records are kept private so you have no idea why people are opting to terminate a pregnancy. And what is it to you? As long as they do not force you to do what is against your morality, why should you be concerned with their morality on the abortion issue?

[Undesired Walrus]

;3532059']No. Miscarriages happen. They are tragic, certainly, but they are not the result of a choice of man or woman to end a pregnancy. It would be pointless to argue against something people had no choice in.

True, but let's say the mother did not treat her body with the utmost respect. I'm not talking about drinking vodka and snorting lines of coke, but going on holiday to a hot country for instance.

But if I may bring up contraception. Presumably, we could argue, a potential human life is prevented from fertilising with a female egg by being defeated by the condoms tip. If it had not been in the way, that sexual event may well have led to Donald who wrote a brilliant book justifying the Iran-US war and Jessica who wrote an opera at the age of 17. There is no reason to suggest that the condom did not prevent this. Those lives were essentially terminated.

(Realises I should get off JREF and look for a real sexual event)

[Elizabeth I]

The father should have some pre-sex decision, as he brings 50% into it. If BOTH fail to contracept and choose abortion as the easy way out, both of them have equal fault/immorality. (And yes, in the ideal case the father should have something to say, as it is his would-be-child too (except in cases of i.e. rape).) The OP just reminded me of the old "Woman, you get pregnant, so it's your problem."-argument, hence the question.

This is a little bit of a derail, but it's something I feel strongly about. This post reminded me of the 1970s, when the women's rights movement was really building up steam. There was a big flap about why was the woman the one who always had to worry about birth control? Why couldn't the man, who was sharing the pleasurable experience, also share the work and the worry? There was (and may still be, for all I know) a big push to develop a birth control pill for men.

WHY ON EARTH would a woman choose to abdicate her responsibility for contraception? However caring and supportive a man might be, he is NOT THE ONE WHO WILL CONCEIVE. He is not the one who will suffer the consequences of possible failure of the contraceptive method. He is not the one who will have to carry to term, go through labor, then be considered (by most of society, at least) as the parent most responsible for the welfare of the child. Alternatively, he is not the one who will have to agonize over whether to have an abortion, carry a life inside of him then turn it over to strangers and hope they do well for it, or give birth and then struggle for years to rear the child.

The woman is the one who will be faced with the possibility of pregnancy and all the decisions that will arise from it. Why would she trust her body and her life to anyone - and I say again, no matter how loving, caring and supportive - to someone who, in the final analysis, will never have to meet the possible consequences personally, but can at best only sympathize?

It's much like the old joke about the difference between a "participant" and a "committed participant": in a ham and egg breakfast, a hen was a participant, but a pig was a committed participant. The man is a participant, but only the woman is a committed participant.

Disclaimer: I am a woman and a feminist, so don't accuse me of "blaming" women. I believe that contraception is a means by which we can control our bodies and our lives and we should never give that right - or responsibility - up to anyone else.

[Fiona]

If one wants to consider it as a scale, one that must be carefully adjusted and weighed for each specific situation, with the needs/rights of both the mother and the infant being considered each time, and a decision being made based on that, I would go along with that (although obviously there might sometimes be some disagreement as to how each side should be weighed).

But if one wants to entirely exclude the child from the equation, and argue that its life or body have no place in the discussion, it is purely determined by the whims of the mother, regardless of her reasons...then I have problems.

Ok, I can accept that this gives you problems. You are not alone. As you know I do not agree because use of another's body without consent is morally indefensible and I have not yet seen any principled disagreement with that.

But on a more practical level, if I accept your proposition, then who is to make this very difficult judgment? At present in the uk there is no "right" to abortion at all: the decision as to whether to grant an abortion is made by two doctors, and there is little or no consistency in access to abortion in different parts of the country. On the basis of your posts here I am assuming you do not believe this is proper, at least in the case of early abortion. We are agreed about that but I bring it in to show that the kind of judgment you are proposing leads to unjust results at the moment. And I see no way of changing that. Perhaps you have a thought out mechanism which can meet this objection and I will be interested to know about that.

Second, I ask you to consider why an adult should not be free to make their own medical decisions? In this country the law states that as soon as a child is old enough to understand and consent to medical procedures then such procedures cannot be imposed upon them at the behest of anyone else. This seems to me to show that the sovereignty over one's own body is held as a very high value and I cannot see why this is negated in the case of abortion. I understand that you believe it is because there is another person involved. But we cannot ask that other person to agree with the decision of anybody: who is to say that where someone external to the situation determines that the abortion is justified, that the foetus (or person, if you prefer) would agree? Who is to say that the judgment of a third party is superior to that of the woman? Why is that necessary or even likely? She is fully capable as an adult of making decisions and I cannot see at all that she is not in the best position to do so, compared with anyone else. The only other situation when the right to make such decisions for oneself is removed is in cases of mental incapacity or where a person is too young to do it. Thus you argue that a woman should be treated as incapacitate or infantile. I cannot find this acceptable.

ETA: @ Elizabeth I. I may be wrong but I do not think anyone is arguing that a woman should abdicate her responsibility for contraception. Rather I think it is reasonable to suppose that men should take responsibility for it too. After all there are men who claim to be aggrieved because a woman has told them she is using the pill but then becomes pregnant; and he is held responsible for any resulting child. This could not happen if he looked after his own fertility: but that says nothing about her not doing the same, does it?

[SusanB-M1]

I write this having read only the OP. The only comment I make whenever this subject crops up is that, if abortion is not legal, then there will be dangerous, illegal ones. Therefore, irrespective of whether it is moral/immoral/any other adjective, it must be available to girls and women who need it.

[X]

True, but let's say the mother did not treat her body with the utmost respect. I'm not talking about drinking vodka and snorting lines of coke, but going on holiday to a hot country for instance.

But if I may bring up contraception. Presumably, we could argue, a potential human life is prevented from fertilising with a female egg by being defeated by the condoms tip. If it had not been in the way, that sexual event may well have led to Donald who wrote a brilliant book justifying the Iran-US war and Jessica who wrote an opera at the age of 17. There is no reason to suggest that the condom did not prevent this. Those lives were essentially terminated.

(Realises I should get off JREF and look for a real sexual event)



I do not have a problem if the fertilization is not allowed to occur, or if the blastocyst does not attach to the endometrium. In such cases, the life never actually begins. Preventing fertilization/attachement is a perfectly acceptable method of controlling reproduction (wow that sounds clinical).

But once the blastocyst is attached (this is pushing the limits of my knowledge on the subject, I actually had to look up the process), it has a chance, from that point forward, to develop normally. Nature can result in all sorts of problems, and actions of/to the mother can has consequences as well.

My sole opinion (and I confess I was only able to form this opinion by taking a very macroscopic view of the situation) if that knowingly deciding to remove the blastocyst's chance for developing and living it's own life is, to me, immoral.

It is not, IMO, as immoral as murder of something recognizably human. I just do not like the thought of ending the bundle of cell's chance to become recognizable human.

I would also like to say that while I personally do not support abortion, I feel the far greater evil is not allowing the choice. Abortion should be legal, and people should be allowed to make up their own minds.

I'm not presumptious enough to pretend that my opinion is more important than that of the concerned party.

[Bob Blaylock]

Yes, I agree it is a distinct human entity and therefore it should get the same rights as any other human entity. That does not include the right to use anyone else's body without their consent.
·
·
·
I say again: the use of another's body without consent is an enormously immoral act. That pregnancy is the only situation where this is not acknowledged suggests to me that a woman is in this sense not seen as fully human with all the rights that go with that.


So, who made the choice that resulted in one human being being in a position of being completely dependent on the use of another's body for his own survival — the unborn child, or his mother? Who is in a position to continue to make any choices regarding whether the child will be allowed to live or die?

The side of the debate that supports the right to murder an innocent child likes to call itself “pro-choice”; but what choice is the child allowed to have?

[yakimicki]

It certainly isn't a cut and dry issue. I don't like abortion, but the day after pill does not bother me in the way that a full on abortion does. I don't know at what point in the process I have a problem with it.

I don't think it should be illegal, but I will tell you this much. If a woman decided to abort my kid because "it was her body", against my will or with out seeking my consent, I would be extremely extremely (two times there) unhappy about it. I would have little sympathy for inconveniencing a woman for 9 months if not doing so would lead to the loss of my (future) child.

To say that it is the woman's choice alone is rather small minded, in my opinion. This society tends to sicken me when it comes to their stance on father's rights. I am quite fond of my children and do not feel that my wife has anything more than an EQUAL say in decisions that affect their lives. The 9 months of carrying a child is something special (or for some of you, apparently it is too inconvenient), I am sure, but to say that those 9 months give the woman some sort of 'divine authority' is suspect.

[yakimicki]

".....I do not agree because use of another's body without consent is morally indefensible and I have not yet seen any principled disagreement with that."


That is an extremely weak argument.

1.) The fetus is not using the mother's body without consent. It is not like the fetus was walking around and hopped in mom. Mom consented by having sex. Mom needs to take responsibility for her actions.

2) Is it even possible for a thing that doesn't have the ability to think to make a decision, moral or not?

3) If the fetus did somehow have the ability to decide whether or not to inconvenience his/her mother by deciding to continue to live and grow, would it ever decide to die? Would it not be immoral for the mother to allow her child to commit suicide because she didn't want to allow the fetus to continue to use her body to stay alive??

In short, the argument you are using is nonsense. It reminds me of the kind of stuff that christians do when rationalizing their faith.

[yakimicki]

".....I do not agree because use of another's body without consent is morally indefensible and I have not yet seen any principled disagreement with that."


That is an extremely weak argument.

1.) The fetus is not using the mother's body without consent. It is not like the fetus was walking around and hopped in mom. Mom consented by having sex. Mom needs to take responsibility for her actions.

2) Is it even possible for a thing that doesn't have the ability to think to make a decision, moral or not?

3) If the fetus did somehow have the ability to decide whether or not to inconvenience his/her mother by deciding to continue to live and grow, would it ever decide to die? Would it not be immoral for the mother to allow her child to commit suicide because she didn't want to allow the fetus to continue to use her body to stay alive??

In short, the argument you are using is nonsense. It reminds me of the kind of stuff that christians do when rationalizing their faith.

[Bob Blaylock]

Second, I ask you to consider why an adult should not be free to make their own medical decisions? In this country the law states that as soon as a child is old enough to understand and consent to medical procedures then such procedures cannot be imposed upon them at the behest of anyone else. This seems to me to show that the sovereignty over one's own body is held as a very high value and I cannot see why this is negated in the case of abortion.


The target of abortion is a child who is not old enough to understand and consent to medical procedures; and who, in this case, if he did understand the procedure involved, would almost certainly not consent to it it all.

[Bob Blaylock]

I write this having read only the OP. The only comment I make whenever this subject crops up is that, if abortion is not legal, then there will be dangerous, illegal ones. Therefore, irrespective of whether it is moral/immoral/any other adjective, it must be available to girls and women who need it.


There's no such thing as a safe abortion. A successful abortion always results in someone dying.

[Wolfman]

But on a more practical level, if I accept your proposition, then who is to make this very difficult judgment? At present in the uk there is no "right" to abortion at all: the decision as to whether to grant an abortion is made by two doctors, and there is little or no consistency in access to abortion in different parts of the country. On the basis of your posts here I am assuming you do not believe this is proper, at least in the case of early abortion. We are agreed about that but I bring it in to show that the kind of judgment you are proposing leads to unjust results at the moment. And I see no way of changing that. Perhaps you have a thought out mechanism which can meet this objection and I will be interested to know about that. Fiona, I'd agree that there is danger of "unjust" decisions; where we differ, perhaps, is that you consider more the question of what is "unjust" to the woman, while I consider what would be "unjust" for both.

I honestly cannot provide solid, definite criteria for you; were I to even attempt to do so, I'm sure that I myself would immediately be able to spot holes, exceptions, inconsistencies, etc. However, in general, I think I'd advise the following:

For pregnancies up to the 6th month, abortions can be performed at the mother's request, without requiring permission or authorization from anyone else. For pregnancies from the 7th month and after, the mother should make her desire known, and specialists consulted to determine if they feel there is a legitimate risk to the mother's physical/emotional health.

Please note that if we are talking about an artificially induced delivery, I would not put such a condition. But if we are talking about an abortion that requires killing the fetus, then I'd want to have confirmation from qualified professionals that there was a legitimate risk to the mother's physical/emotional health.

I know that you won't be entirely happy with that; however, failing to have such a control essentially reduces the infant's 'rights' to zero, where only the mother's considerations have any relevance.
Second, I ask you to consider why an adult should not be free to make their own medical decisions? In this country the law states that as soon as a child is old enough to understand and consent to medical procedures then such procedures cannot be imposed upon them at the behest of anyone else. This seems to me to show that the sovereignty over one's own body is held as a very high value and I cannot see why this is negated in the case of abortion. I understand that you believe it is because there is another person involved. But we cannot ask that other person to agree with the decision of anybody: who is to say that where someone external to the situation determines that the abortion is justified, that the foetus (or person, if you prefer) would agree? Who is to say that the judgment of a third party is superior to that of the woman? Why is that necessary or even likely? She is fully capable as an adult of making decisions and I cannot see at all that she is not in the best position to do so, compared with anyone else. The only other situation when the right to make such decisions for oneself is removed is in cases of mental incapacity or where a person is too young to do it. Thus you argue that a woman should be treated as incapacitate or infantile. I cannot find this acceptable.If you are talking about a decision that affects only your own body, I'd agree. However, as I've stated several times, I do not believe this is a decision just about your body; it is a decision about somebody else's body. And I know of nowhere in medicine or law where you have the legal right to make a unilateral medical decision that affects another individual's life, without consultation and permission of independent professionals. If, for example, a loved one is brain-dead, you don't have the "right" to unilaterally take them off of life-support; you need confirmation from medical professionals that the person actually is brain-dead.

Or, to take an even more extreme example -- consider the example of siamese twins. Let's say that one of the two twins wants to have surgery that is potentially life-threatening, but the other one does not. Who's "rights" predominate? You could argue on the one hand that if the surgery is specifically on the part of the body that belongs to the twin who wants the surgery, then it is their body, and their right to choose. But you could likewise argue that, since the surgery likewise causes risk to the other twin, that unless the surgery is deemed necessary by medical professionals, that the first twin should not have the right to make such a unilateral decision. Even though it is their own body. (And, for that matter, despite the fact that their twin is an uninvited or unwanted 'passenger')

[Undesired Walrus]

;3532466']I do not have a problem if the fertilization is not allowed to occur, or if the blastocyst does not attach to the endometrium. In such cases, the life never actually begins. Preventing fertilization/attachement is a perfectly acceptable method of controlling reproduction (wow that sounds clinical).

But once the blastocyst is attached (this is pushing the limits of my knowledge on the subject, I actually had to look up the process), it has a chance, from that point forward, to develop normally. Nature can result in all sorts of problems, and actions of/to the mother can has consequences as well.

My sole opinion (and I confess I was only able to form this opinion by taking a very macroscopic view of the situation) if that knowingly deciding to remove the blastocyst's chance for developing and living it's own life is, to me, immoral.

It is not, IMO, as immoral as murder of something recognizably human. I just do not like the thought of ending the bundle of cell's chance to become recognizable human.

I would also like to say that while I personally do not support abortion, I feel the far greater evil is not allowing the choice. Abortion should be legal, and people should be allowed to make up their own minds.

I'm not presumptious enough to pretend that my opinion is more important than that of the concerned party.

Ok, gotcha.

But you would agree that many Da Vincis, Becketts and Darwins have failed to come into existence because of the use of a certain slippery sock bought in the men's public toilet? Because that, IMO, is what I see as the strongest argument for keeping abortion, like contraception, legal.

[Fiona]

1.) The fetus is not using the mother's body without consent. It is not like the fetus was walking around and hopped in mom. Mom consented by having sex. Mom needs to take responsibility for her actions.

She quite clearly does not consent if she wants an abortion. You are not making any sense

2) Is it even possible for a thing that doesn't have the ability to think to make a decision, moral or not?

I would say no and therefore it is not human and it has no human rights at all.

3) If the fetus did somehow have the ability to decide whether or not to inconvenience his/her mother by deciding to continue to live and grow, would it ever decide to die?

I have no idea and neither do you


Would it not be immoral for the mother to allow her child to commit suicide because she didn't want to allow the fetus to continue to use her body to stay alive??

No. If it was human then it has the right to commit suicide. But it is not so it is moot

In short, the argument you are using is nonsense. It reminds me of the kind of stuff that christians do when rationalizing their faith.

Funny but your determination to punish women for having sex strikes me just the same way. :D

[Kahalachan]

What if the woman is poor and the condom broke? Does that make an abortion less immoral, in your point of view?

For those who object to abortion, whatever their reason, this is what I say: If you're opposed to abortion, don't have one!

If your reply is, "Well I'm a man". Then my answer is, "There you go."


Yes. If we take preventative measures to ensure a desired outcome, and an undesired outcome surfaces, then it requires special consideration as opposed to someone who had no planning or foresight.

A liposuction involve's someone's own body. But I can look down on someone for various reasons for having one. If the person exercized, ate right, and could do no more, I would think it fine if they wanted to get rid of that fat. If they were a slob and opted for the easy way to get rid of fat, I have no respect for that.

The difference is, one really tried and put effort in preventing the undesired aspect of their body.

I don't see any sense in your statement "Then don't have one"

If someone sees abortion as similar to killing a child and in response to someone else killing a child, the defense is "Well you don't kill a child then if you don't like it" it would be purely absurd.

The whole point of arguing morality is to say "I think you ought to or ought not to do this"

[Kahalachan]

Can I ask where this rule came from? If we enforced it across the board we wouldn't be able to kill slugs or flowers.

Or does "processing a stimulus" mean more than just reacting?

Across the board for the human species.

This is specieist, which PETA and other animal rights activists try and compare with racism or sexis but I just don't see it. We should always give preference to our species. No one will let a bear eat their friend cause the bear has rights too.

So if it is human and processes a stimulus in its brain, then it is to be given rights considerable as a person. The same rights we should offer strong artificial intelligence and alien life forms that can communicate with us, except in those cases humans still come first.

All other atheists who sort of or fully agree with me, good to see you posting and nice to see I'm not alone.

And everyone else who chimed in with good input, thanks.

[X]

Ok, gotcha.

Cheers.


But you would agree that many Da Vincis, Becketts and Darwins have failed to come into existence because of the use of a certain slippery sock bought in the men's public toilet?

I'll agree it represents a possibilty. There is no telling what geniuses (like myself) could have been. But fertilization never occured. I have no problem with that. It's the same situation, to me, as all the millions of sperm that did not fertilize the egg. It's essentially just stopping one lonely sperm. The lucky fellow.


Because that, IMO, is what I see as the strongest argument for keeping abortion, like contraception, legal.

Again, this goes back to my objection to artificial ending a fertilized egg's chance for life. If the egg never gets fertilized, of never fixes itself to the uterean wall, then it never had that chance to begin with. That moment the blastocyst becomes attached to the endometrium is the defining moment for me.
But as I said, Im all for keeping it legal.


Is there a term for someone who morally objects to abortion, but wants people to have the choice for themselves? Besides doublethink, I mean...



ETA: Isn't your argument for keeping abortions legal the same one the Catholics use for trying to ban contraceptives?

[Fiona]

Fiona, I'd agree that there is danger of "unjust" decisions; where we differ, perhaps, is that you consider more the question of what is "unjust" to the woman, while I consider what would be "unjust" for both.

I honestly cannot provide solid, definite criteria for you; were I to even attempt to do so, I'm sure that I myself would immediately be able to spot holes, exceptions, inconsistencies, etc. However, in general, I think I'd advise the following:

For pregnancies up to the 6th month, abortions can be performed at the mother's request, without requiring permission or authorization from anyone else. For pregnancies from the 7th month and after, the mother should make her desire known, and specialists consulted to determine if they feel there is a legitimate risk to the mother's physical/emotional health.

Please note that if we are talking about an artificially induced delivery, I would not put such a condition. But if we are talking about an abortion that requires killing the fetus, then I'd want to have confirmation from qualified professionals that there was a legitimate risk to the mother's physical/emotional health.

I know that you won't be entirely happy with that; however, failing to have such a control essentially reduces the infant's 'rights' to zero, where only the mother's considerations have any relevance.

You are right I am not entirely happy.I do not understand why you do not get the enormity of taking control of another human being's body for any time period. But nevertheless I could live with that. :)


If you are talking about a decision that affects only your own body, I'd agree. However, as I've stated several times, I do not believe this is a decision just about your body; it is a decision about somebody else's body.

Yes it is. You are happy to take control of a woman's body. Unfortunately I cannot actually think of a situation where this would be a reality for a man, so I cannot illustrate it for you. Perhaps someone else can.

And I know of nowhere in medicine or law where you have the legal right to make a unilateral medical decision that affects another individual's life, without consultation and permission of independent professionals. If, for example, a loved one is brain-dead, you don't have the "right" to unilaterally take them off of life-support; you need confirmation from medical professionals that the person actually is brain-dead.

Yes you do. The difference is that you do not have to cede your body's autonomy in those circumstances. But I realise that is not important to you so there is little more to be said

Or, to take an even more extreme example -- consider the example of siamese twins. Let's say that one of the two twins wants to have surgery that is potentially life-threatening, but the other one does not. Who's "rights" predominate? You could argue on the one hand that if the surgery is specifically on the part of the body that belongs to the twin who wants the surgery, then it is their body, and their right to choose. But you could likewise argue that, since the surgery likewise causes risk to the other twin, that unless the surgery is deemed necessary by medical professionals, that the first twin should not have the right to make such a unilateral decision. Even though it is their own body. (And, for that matter, despite the fact that their twin is an uninvited or unwanted 'passenger')

Again a good point. This is difficult because I am not certain that there are two bodies here; if not the analogy does not stand.

[thaiboxerken]

A woman who has consentual sex and gets pregnant as a result should have the baby and if she doesn't want it give it to someone who does through legal channels.

Why?

[thaiboxerken]

1.) The fetus is not using the mother's body without consent. It is not like the fetus was walking around and hopped in mom. Mom consented by having sex. Mom needs to take responsibility for her actions.

Yes, it is. It doesn't matter how it got there, the moment the woman doesn't want it there, it is there without consent.

Also, are you implying that abortion isn't a responsible choice?


2) Is it even possible for a thing that doesn't have the ability to think to make a decision, moral or not?

If it can't think, it's not a person, so what's the problem here?


3) If the fetus did somehow have the ability to decide whether or not to inconvenience his/her mother by deciding to continue to live and grow, would it ever decide to die?

Of course not, and it's irrelevant. It is inside of another being that doesn't want it there.

Would it not be immoral for the mother to allow her child to commit suicide because she didn't want to allow the fetus to continue to use her body to stay alive??

What does this even mean?


In short, the argument you are using is nonsense. It reminds me of the kind of stuff that christians do when rationalizing their faith.

Hardly. It's a position of some women that they really would like to have control over their own bodies and medical conditions, if possible. Heck, I'm a man and would like the same thing.

[Magenta]

I quoted you because you said what I wanted to, but I'm a bloke, so it wouldn't have sounded right. Thank you. :)

Having said that, and in order to address the OP, I'm an atheist who doesn't have a moral viewpoint on abortion at all. For one thing, I don't see any relationship between my lack of religion and my morality (such as it is), and for another, as Magenta quite rightly points out, I'd be a patronising idiot to think it was any of my business.

One thing brought out in the OP that I do find disturbing though, is the wording of the Hippocratic Oath




Great Zeus! Is that fair dinkum? If doctors are relying on gods and godesses as witnesses, I refuse to get sick.


Thank you. Quite frankly I thought the OP was trolling (women who have sex with someone other than their husband are sluts – WTF?!) and didn't warrant more than a terse reply.

I think the discussion is one that men should be involved in and knowledgeable about, but it also shows up the sexist, patronising, moralising and/or generally uninformed attitudes of some people (similar to discussions about rape).

[skeptifem]

Different from just an ordinary slut cheating on her husband.

I kinda didnt want to read after this point. but i did.

ugh

[EeneyMinnieMoe]

No one asked me :where's the self-mocking or sarcastic smile emoticon?: but I also have very mixed feelings on abortion that have nothing to do with religion.

Although I would ultimately agree that abortion shouldn't be illegal, I wouldn't have one myself- despite not planning or wanting to have any children.

I feel almost 100% certain in saying that I'd never have one- no matter what the circumstances.

I just wouldn't feel that it was right. Just wouldn't.

[Primus]

Surely if everyone spent the same amount of time and effort preventing people who have been alive for at least a few years being killed it would be a lot more worthwhile?

[Ichneumonwasp]

".....I do not agree because use of another's body without consent is morally indefensible and I have not yet seen any principled disagreement with that."


That is an extremely weak argument.

1.) The fetus is not using the mother's body without consent. It is not like the fetus was walking around and hopped in mom. Mom consented by having sex. Mom needs to take responsibility for her actions.

2) Is it even possible for a thing that doesn't have the ability to think to make a decision, moral or not?

3) If the fetus did somehow have the ability to decide whether or not to inconvenience his/her mother by deciding to continue to live and grow, would it ever decide to die? Would it not be immoral for the mother to allow her child to commit suicide because she didn't want to allow the fetus to continue to use her body to stay alive??

In short, the argument you are using is nonsense. It reminds me of the kind of stuff that christians do when rationalizing their faith.

In Fiona's defense, the important issue here is not the fetus as far as consent goes but the mother. Consent on the fetus' side is impossible so there is no sense even discussing it. It makes sense discussing only the mother's consent to carry a fetus. A mother does have the right to withdraw her consent, however much that may piss off you or anyone else.

But against Fiona I have to side with Wolfman, not only because I also use that same argument, but because of the sort of issue that you really raise.

I think it is wrong to treat this issue as being decided by one or another single moral principles as Fiona is doing. Abortion is one of those issues where two perfectly good moral precepts come into conflict -- so we must decide to jettison one or balance the two in some sort of compromise. The same thing happens in politics when discussing equality and freedom -- take freedom as the single most important issue and equality suffers, and vice versa.

In this situation we have these two competing issues: the basic human right to life and the right for a person to decide what to do with his or her body.

Some philosophers have tried to argue that a fetus does not have a right to life. I don't particularly agree, but I do think that a woman's right to choose what to do with her body is almost inviolate. We put some restrictions on everyone's right to do whatever with their body if we think they are not in their right mind.

Personally, I think the best compromise is the viability issue -- a woman has every right to decide what to do with her body and a fetus that can only survive at her will can, therefore, be subjected to her will. Once that fetus is viable outside her body, then termination of pregnancy should result in birth of the fetus. Of course, that produces a big financial issue, but that is another kettle of fish.

That's as far as I think one should take the legal issue. The moral issue is another matter about which I think we should probably remain silent.

Bottom line -- it is the woman's decision.

[Primus]

Bottom line -- it is the woman's decision.

I agree. It would be interesting to see how peoples opinions changed if the de facto state of affairs was that the bloke got the baby and the woman pissed off

[Elizabeth I]

I agree. It would be interesting to see how peoples opinions changed if the de facto state of affairs was that the bloke got the baby and the woman pissed off

To quote a really angry (and justifiably so) 70s-era feminist:

If men could get pregnant, abortion would be a sacrament.

[Ichneumonwasp]

I agree. It would be interesting to see how peoples opinions changed if the de facto state of affairs was that the bloke got the baby and the woman pissed off

If men got pregnant we'd only discuss what beer went best after the abortion.

[qayak]

If it [contraceptive] had not been in the way, that sexual event may well have led to Donald who wrote a brilliant book justifying the Iran-US war and Jessica who wrote an opera at the age of 17. There is no reason to suggest that the condom did not prevent this. Those lives were essentially terminated.

But then again, the prevented life may have been the next Hitler or Jeffrey Dahmer. The "You Killed the Next Einstein" argument is pretty weak.

I agree with your sentiment though. The condom or pill or morning after pill prevented the birth of a potential child as surely as an abortion would.

[Primus]

I am actually a man who would love to have children incase anyone thinks i'm a militant feminist lady. But I think that having a father is incredibly important. There are so many young women I've met who have had it hardwired into them that men are evil. It leads to becoming a very unhappy person. It's bordering on "every sperm is sacred" if you say that it's murdering a baby when you have an abortion. A baby should be brought up in a loving family that wants you

[Silentknight]

I know this isn't strictly on topic, but since much of what I would have said has already been covered, I just have this to add.

Would anyone object to including free reversible sterilization procedures, such as a vasectomy or bitubal ligation, in a national health plan? In other words, anyone who wants to get these procedures done could walk into a clinic and get them. This would prevent a lot of unwanted / dangerous pregnancies, even when contraception fails.

Also, I know it hasn't come up yet, but I have no intention of entertaining the fundamentalist religious notion of using pregnancies (and STDs) to punish women for having sex. It's going to happen regardless, since it's pretty hard to counteract 6 million years worth of evolution.

[Ichneumonwasp]

I know this isn't strictly on topic, but since much of what I would have said has already been covered, I just have this to add.

Would anyone object to including free reversible sterilization procedures, such as a vasectomy or bitubal ligation, in a national health plan? In other words, anyone who wants to get these procedures done could walk into a clinic and get them. This would prevent a lot of unwanted / dangerous pregnancies, even when contraception fails.

Also, I know it hasn't come up yet, but I have no intention of entertaining the fundamentalist religious notion of using pregnancies (and STDs) to punish women for having sex. It's going to happen regardless, since it's pretty hard to counteract 6 million years worth of evolution.


Well, yeah, but evolution is a lie, so what's your point?:D

I'm not really for vasectomy/tubal ligation as a regular policy because they are not completely reversible and the pill is so effective.

[qayak]

Would anyone object to including free reversible sterilization procedures, such as a vasectomy or bitubal ligation, in a national health plan?

Already available in more enlightened areas of the world.

[Kahalachan]

I know this isn't strictly on topic, but since much of what I would have said has already been covered, I just have this to add.

Would anyone object to including free reversible sterilization procedures, such as a vasectomy or bitubal ligation, in a national health plan? In other words, anyone who wants to get these procedures done could walk into a clinic and get them. This would prevent a lot of unwanted / dangerous pregnancies, even when contraception fails.

Also, I know it hasn't come up yet, but I have no intention of entertaining the fundamentalist religious notion of using pregnancies (and STDs) to punish women for having sex. It's going to happen regardless, since it's pretty hard to counteract 6 million years worth of evolution.

I think it'd be great. :)


Also, I think my point with posting the Hippocratic Oath might not have been understood. Not being an ethical doctor doesn't mean you can't be an ethical *something else* You could be an ethical soldier who only fights armed combatants who consent to combat. They kill lives. I only found it interesting that back then, and some of us today, still hold the ideal that medical doctors must save lives and never take them.

I think this issue is mixed with gender issues, when it shouldn't be. Just cause I compared abortion to a wife cheating on her husband doesn't mean I have it out for women because I used a female example. I think people missed the point of this just by glancing at what they perceived to be sexist.

People say men have no moral right to say what a woman does with parts of her anatomy that are uniquely female. I find this reasoning absurd. Person X has a body part Person Y doesn't. Person X is allowed to do whatever with their body part and Person Y has no say and their voice must not be heard. This to me sounds like a gender ad hominem.

While atheists may be rational about religion, which is emotional for the religious, I think many lose it about being rational about racial or gender issues, which remains emotional for them.

Abortion touches up on some really important moral philosophical questions where people simply say "Woman's body" or "Human life" and end it at that.

With abortion we can try to be consistent with our morality. So what if a fetus cannot consent? Severe autistics cannot consent and we grant them rights to life. So consent is not the entire issue. We assume by their natural aversion to a harmful stimulus, that an autistic would not want to get killed. If a fetus can show that it is going to avoid a stimulus, shall we not grant them that same right? Consent is the issue in many moral topics, but with life, it might be tricky. If someone just wants to lay down and die we don't let them. If someone wants to commit suicide we actually try and prevent it, even if they consent to want death.

With saving human life, we kind of throw consent out the door in certain ways.

Viability is also taken into consideration for abortion, but I wonder if that's a good direction to take. It's kind of funny but Futurama made me think about this. When Fry is sewn to Amy's body, he can't live without her body. Does Amy have a right to remove Fry and kill him? Amy waited it out and Fry got his body back and lived. In this hypothetical cartoon example, I would say Fry should've lived regardless of what Amy wants.

Like science, I think a good moral standard should be predictive.

By this, if a moral standard makes logical sense, it should anticipate future technological possibilities that would raise moral questions and answer them.

So if we can think of even hypothetical technological issues that would question our moral guides, I think that it would need revision.

[Magenta]

I think this issue is mixed with gender issues, when it shouldn't be. Just cause I compared abortion to a wife cheating on her husband doesn't mean I have it out for women because I used a female example. I think people missed the point of this just by glancing at what they perceived to be sexist..


Calling a woman who has sex with someone who is not her husband a slut is sexist. Do you really not understand that?

I don't have the time or inclination right now to address the rest of your post.

[Wolfman]

Yes you do. The difference is that you do not have to cede your body's autonomy in those circumstances. But I realise that is not important to you so there is little more to be saidFiona, I could just as easily argue that the difference is that you don't care about the infant's body, or that babies are not important to you.

The situations you cited all concern situations where it is only your body that is involved, not where it is your body and another person's body. You represent me as "not caring", or considering it "unimportant", that you don't get to choose; I'd say that is completely wrong, I think it is very important. But you dismiss the child from the equation entirely...only you matter, only you are important. The baby? Just so much flesh to dispose of, not a human at all.
Again a good point. This is difficult because I am not certain that there are two bodies here; if not the analogy does not stand.There are plenty of siamese twins who have two distinct bodies, but are still joined and interconnected. How about two twins who are connected at the waist; they share a kidney and a few other organs, but other than that they are entirely distinct and separate entities. They have two different brains, they each have their own arms, legs, etc.

One of the twins wants to donate a kidney (the kidney that is entirely his own, not the kidney that is shared by the two of them). The doctors declare that it is potentially dangerous for both of them, since this could have a negative effect on the other twin (by overloading or straining the one kidney they'd both be sharing). Because of this, the other twin objects, and says he refuses to consent to the surgery.

So...it is his body, and his kidney. Should he have the unilateral right to decide what to do with his body? Or, because he is in a situation where whatever medical decision he makes will have a direct medical effect on another distinct human life, are there more complicated moral questions that should be asked, and should the needs and health of the other human not also enter into the equation?

Or would you say that I just "don't care" about the first twin, that I "don't respect" their rights or their autonomy, or that I think they are "not important"...simply because I feel that the medical needs and concerns for both people involved should be considered?

[Kahalachan]

Calling a woman who has sex with someone who is not her husband a slut is sexist. Do you really not understand that?

I don't have the time or inclination right now to address the rest of your post.

How does it fit the deinition of sexism?

I would consider the husband equally slutty.

You are confusing the unfortunate cultural trend to only consider women as sluts as synonymous with my own views as to who ought to be looked down upon for breaking an oath of marriage.

I think this post is an example of how the pendulum of feminism has swung too far the other way, where we coddle women as these helpless individuals who cannot stand criticism. That actually makes them look weaker as a sex, rather than providing them equal treatment.

If a woman considers abortion, an act that would end human life, and I give my input for her to reconsider upon asking my opinion, I would be seen as sexist. All for acting on the same moral principles that would guide me towards preventing any other human from ending their own or another's life.

Ultimately, I would not use force to stop her or think any law should be made to prevent her. But my concern to preserve human life as much as possible would be fully in my right to state my opinion on such a matter.

[Hokulele]

How does it fit the deinition of sexism?

I would consider the husband equally slutty.


It fits the definition of sexism in that your OP did not make it clear. You specifically focused on the woman cheating. Now that you are being called on it, you are back pedaling. Sorry, but it does not help to clarify now, you should have thought about the statement in the OP before posting it.

You are confusing the unfortunate cultural trend to only consider women as sluts as synonymous with my own views as to who ought to be looked down upon for breaking an oath of marriage.

I think this post is an example of how the pendulum of feminism has swung too far the other way, where we coddle women as these helpless individuals who cannot stand criticism. That actually makes them look weaker as a sex, rather than providing them equal treatment.

If a woman considers abortion, an act that would end human life, and I give my input for her to reconsider upon asking my opinion, I would be seen as sexist. All for acting on the same moral principles that would guide me towards preventing any other human from ending their own or another's life.

Ultimately, I would not use force to stop her or think any law should be made to prevent her. But my concern to preserve human life as much as possible would be fully in my right to state my opinion on such a matter.


And now you are using the accusation of sexism as a red herring to deflect from defending your opposition of abortion from a purely moral and scientific viewpoint, to paraphrase your OP.

I do not mean to sound harsh, but if you want this to be a calm discussion based on rational points, I would recommend you acknowledge that your OP was poorly worded and move on.

[Safe-Keeper]

I think this post is an example of how the pendulum of feminism has swung too far the other way, where we coddle women as these helpless individuals who cannot stand criticism. That actually makes them look weaker as a sex, rather than providing them equal treatment.This is not my experience of society at all.

If a woman considers abortion, an act that would end human life, and I give my input for her to reconsider upon asking my opinion, I would be seen as sexist. All for acting on the same moral principles that would guide me towards preventing any other human from ending their own or another's life. If someone considers homicide, suicide or abortion, it doesn't help that you stand there going 'dude, that's immoral!'. You need to take slightly more constructive measures than that. Want to end abortion? Make a donation to any organization in charge of condom distribution or comprehensive sex ed. And that's just one way.

[Kahalachan]

It fits the definition of sexism in that your OP did not make it clear. You specifically focused on the woman cheating. Now that you are being called on it, you are back pedaling. Sorry, but it does not help to clarify now, you should have thought about the statement in the OP before posting it.

And now you are using the accusation of sexism as a red herring to deflect from defending your opposition of abortion from a purely moral and scientific viewpoint, to paraphrase your OP.

I do not mean to sound harsh, but if you want this to be a calm discussion based on rational points, I would recommend you acknowledge that your OP was poorly worded and move on.


I do intend to be rational and address the fact that I did not conceive of the OP not being clear on the lack of sexism. I acknowledge that gladly so that the conversation may continue. There is no back peddling, only clarification offered for miscommunication. :) On forums we discuss things casually and aren't writing a book. You guys are my editors and can point out miscommunications and I gladly accept fault in my post.

There was no red herring intended. Magneta said it was sexist and didn't have time to address the rest of the post. So I debated within the scope of what was addressed.

I think people treat abortion too black and white. Life vs. choice, rather than appreciate and explore the complexities of this issue.

[Hokulele]

I do intend to be rational and address the fact that I did not conceive of the OP not being clear on the lack of sexism. I acknowledge that gladly so that the conversation may continue. There is no back peddling, only clarification offered for miscommunication. :) On forums we discuss things casually and aren't writing a book. You guys are my editors and can point out miscommunications and I gladly accept fault in my post.


Cool. I can accept that. :)

There was no red herring intended. Magneta said it was sexist and didn't have time to address the rest of the post. So I debated within the scope of what was addressed.


Intended or not, it did appear to be written that way. Since Magenta did not address the rest of the post, it would have been better to keep your remarks to addressing her concerns. But, water under the bridge.

I think people treat abortion too black and white. Life vs. choice, rather than appreciate and explore the complexities of this issue.


I agree, which is one reason I had been avoiding this thread up until now. Even your OP seemed to be cast in those terms. There are just too many "what ifs" that can be explored to reduce abortion to strict definitions of when life begins, or what responsibilities should be carried by the mother and father respectively. Economic issues, health issues, psychological issues, and more need to be taken into account. This can only be done on a case by case basis, which makes any blanket statement impossible. What should parents do in the case of disastrously conjoined twins that cannot be separated, and both will surely die if carried to term? There are many more issues that are even less clear-cut in pregnancy.

Personally, I believe that abortion is the most private decision imaginable, and if the father wishes to be involved in this decision, good for him (and her). But I would never assume that the father necessarily wants to be involved, and laws should be framed that way. In other words, the father's opinion should be respected, but the mother's must be.

[Sceptic Realist]

I think people treat abortion too black and white. Life vs. choice, rather than appreciate and explore the complexities of this issue.

I think that way about just about everything.

[Magenta]

How does it fit the deinition of sexism?

I consider the word "slut" sexist because it is applied almost exclusively to women (despite your belated attempt to apply it to a male) and is derogatory to the point that it is used as a term of abuse. If you have difficulty with this concept, think of some of the nastier racist terms that are used against black people – "slut" is in the same category in terms of offensiveness, IMO.

I would consider the husband equally slutty.

Actually I don't know why you brought marital infidelity into a discussion about abortion.

You are confusing the unfortunate cultural trend to only consider women as sluts as synonymous with my own views as to who ought to be looked down upon for breaking an oath of marriage.

If you knew it was an "unfortunate cultural trend", why use such a loaded and judgmental term? Also, I'm pretty much uninterested in who you think "ought to be looked down upon".

I think this post is an example of how the pendulum of feminism has swung too far the other way, where we coddle women as these helpless individuals who cannot stand criticism. That actually makes them look weaker as a sex, rather than providing them equal treatment.

Refraining from using sexist terms isn't about "coddling women"; it's a simple matter of respect. (If you're hoping to dissuade women from having abortions, you might want to keep that in mind.) And please stop with the "feminism has gone too far" canard.

If a woman considers abortion, an act that would end human life, and I give my input for her to reconsider upon asking my opinion, I would be seen as sexist. All for acting on the same moral principles that would guide me towards preventing any other human from ending their own or another's life.

It's the content of your opinion that I took issue with, not whether or not you ought to be able to express it.

Ultimately, I would not use force to stop her or think any law should be made to prevent her. But my concern to preserve human life as much as possible would be fully in my right to state my opinion on such a matter.

Well that's encouraging; that you wouldn't use force to stop someone exercising a legal right.


As for the rest of your post @ #92, I don't have much to say except that I have a personal distaste for using language like "moral" and "immoral" because it comes with a lot of religious baggage and seems to involve people wanting to impose their version of morality on others. The legal right to abortion is a done deal (in Australia at least) and it's a personal (not necessarily black or white) choice that one makes in consultation with others. As Safe-Keeper and others have pointed out, there are better ways of reducing the need for abortion than declaring it immoral.

[Skeptic Ginger]

It's my body and my choice. End of story. Patronising idiots and their ideas about "morality" are irrelevant.Until that baby's viable outside the womb, it is the woman's body and my moral decision echoes this one.

Should we tell men they shouldn't have vasectomies because it would kill future sperm? Why draw the line at conception? Why not before conception? Why not at the time the fetus is viable? Why not at birth?

You can make all sorts of arguments where to draw the line between what is still part of the mother and what is no longer part of the mother. And you'd have various numbers of people agreeing and not agreeing. If the baby cannot survive on its own, then it is still part of the mother.

[Magenta]

I dug out a couple of long blog entries that stuck in my mind when I first read them via Pharyngula. Some of you may find them informative and thought-provoking. Both are well-articulated and moving; the first is by an Ob-Gyn who performs abortions:

Why I Provide Abortions (http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/5/31/22921/8574)


No one, neither the patient receiving an abortion, nor the person doing the abortion, is ever, at anytime, unaware that they are ending a life. We just don't believe that a developing embryo or fetus, whose mother cannot or will not accept it, has the same moral claims on us, claims to autonomy and justice, that an adolescent or adult woman has. I have never seen an abortion decision entered into lightly by anyone involved. The decision to have an abortion is most often made in the time of the first great personal moral crisis that ever faces a girl, a woman, her family and the people who love them. It is only those who stand outside and condemn the women and families who are faced with these dilemmas who take lightly the decisions made in these straits and trivialize the circumstances in which they are made.

Moral dilemmas are always about difficult problems. Decisions between right and wrong are not moral dilemmas; decisions between right and wrong should be no-brainers and should never be difficult.



The second is by a man who, as some of the posters in this thread have remarked, viewed abortion as something he would never have to make a decision on:

My Views on Abortion (http://disgustedbeyondbelief.blogspot.com/2007/04/my-views-on-abortion.html)


When asked about the issue, my flippant response was that I have decided that I, personally, will never have an abortion. Not exactly a huge committment, given that I can't get pregnant. But it also reflected (and reflects) my conviction that it is a personal choice.

Then I had to wrestle with this issue in my own life.

[megaresp]

Personally I support the right to have abortions for whatever reason the woman involved wants to have one. For me the overriding principle is that it's her body, and she has an absolute right not to have things in it that she doesn't want to have there.

I agree. For me, it boils down to the question "who owns your body?" If the answer is you, then abortion ought to be a non-issue (unless you think you're the only person who can trusted to own his/her own body).

Of course, we don't live in a society that respects the concept of individual sovereignty.

Even if I believed that the foetus was a human with all the mental capacity and rights of an adult, I would still support abortion for that reason.

I recognise that that this would be regarded by many as an extreme viewpoint. I am comfortable enough with the current laws allowing for abortion up to a certain point.
Yes, it is an extreme viewpoint when compared to the views held by others in the western world. Never-the-less, it's a rational conclusion assuming a person starts from the perspective that we are each entitled to sovereignty over our own body.

Why wouldn't that sovereignty extend to unborn children that are wholly dependent on a willing host?

[Jekyll]

Across the board for the human species.

This is specieist, which PETA and other animal rights activists try and compare with racism or sexis but I just don't see it. We should always give preference to our species. No one will let a bear eat their friend cause the bear has rights too.
I agree with you on this part.

So if it is human and processes a stimulus in its brain, then it is to be given rights considerable as a person. The same rights we should offer strong artificial intelligence and alien life forms that can communicate with us, except in those cases humans still come first.
I disagree on the first bit of this part. I think there is more to being human that sharing DNA and some kind of partially working brain stem.
I don't think that conciousness is a spark that lights in the brain as soon as a little gas is flowing, but a complex process that depends on many working subparts that takes time to create. I also don't see how you can consider anything without some kind of rudimentary consciousness to have any humanity.

[yakimicki]

Okay, now 2 of you have said that, paraphrased "If it can not think, it is not human" in response to my remarks along the lines of "if it were able to think and make rational decisions.."

If what you suggest was valid, then when does one become human? At what age can a child make a rational decision, or truly think? Is a newborn baby less human than you or I?

What about folks with severe mental retardation. Should we put them to death too? After all, they are obviously not human in your eyes.

...and the part about the mother being able to remove consent at any point, wow, really?

Do we really have responsibility to ourselves Uber Alles? Do we not have responsibility to pay attention to consequences that our actions have on others?

I would argue that at some point in a pregnancy that the fetus is indeed human. It has all the bits and parts of a human. It may not be able to live on its own or think rationally, but really, couldn't the same be said for a 2 month old baby. Could a 2 month old fend for itself or make meaningful decisions?

What if it isn't human? Do we have no responsibility to protect other species from wanton destruction?


My stances, here, certainly are not based on a religion. I've been an atheist since about the age when, by your definition, I became human and had rights (around 12 or 13).

I do see some benefits from abortion, too. There are many people who would be horrible parents due to their self-centeredness and lack of compassion and empathy. Abortion saves many fetuses from turning into children who's childhood molds them in to their parents, or (worse?) criminals. The problem with this benefit is that it is selfish and smacks of Eugenics/Nazism.

I do, however, have trouble making it illegal. I think the fact that it is seen as 'okay' by so many people who's opinion I respect, that it really is a matter that should not be lorded by the courts. The arguments do not move me though. "If it is illegal, then women will be forced to put their own lives at risk". To me, that is like saying that we should allow street thugs to carry weapons so that they do not risk hurting themselves during a mugging.

[Ichneumonwasp]

Okay, now 2 of you have said that, paraphrased "If it can not think, it is not human" in response to my remarks along the lines of "if it were able to think and make rational decisions.."

If what you suggest was valid, then when does one become human? At what age can a child make a rational decision, or truly think? Is a newborn baby less human than you or I?

What about folks with severe mental retardation. Should we put them to death too? After all, they are obviously not human in your eyes.

According to Peter Singer, newborns do not inherently have a right to life -- parents give them that right because they love them.

I don't agree with him. I think we should extend the right to life as far as possible with humans. Speciesist? Hell yes, and proud of it.

...and the part about the mother being able to remove consent at any point, wow, really?

Do we really have responsibility to ourselves Uber Alles? Do we not have responsibility to pay attention to consequences that our actions have on others?

I would argue that at some point in a pregnancy that the fetus is indeed human. It has all the bits and parts of a human. It may not be able to live on its own or think rationally, but really, couldn't the same be said for a 2 month old baby. Could a 2 month old fend for itself or make meaningful decisions?


The difference is that anyone else can care for a 2 month old. In the case of a fetus before viability no one else can do the job. Must a woman continue to carry a baby even if she doesn't want it? She has no say over her own body?

Of course, abortion means the death of a child. Few people want to argue otherwise. It simply boils down to a situation in which we sometimes agree that it is legal for a woman to choose to do so because she can decide what she wants to do with her body, even though a child should have a right to life. There is never an easy answer when we deal with competing moral claims. How should we choose? There is no firm ground on which to stand.

As to whether or not it's moral? We all have to decide that individually. Being a man, I don't think my feelings on it carry much sway. I'm not the one faced with such a decision. While I may wish that no one make the decision to abort except in rare situations -- life threatening for the mother and/or severe fetal abnormalities -- I recognize that it is the mother's decision. I may not agree with her decision, but that's a different point, and regardless of my feeling it is probably best for most of us to keep our mouths shut.

What if it isn't human? Do we have no responsibility to protect other species from wanton destruction?

Inherent responsibility? No, I don't think so. But we may choose to do so.

[This Guy]

I feel as if I'm one of the only ones here since it feels as if the fundie Christians are the only ones who speak out against it.

First let me make some very important distinctions.

Huge difference between "immoral" and "should be illegal"

SNIP

Ok so first, I am wondering if there are any other atheists whose morality is like mine.

Second, I would love to discuss this issue, which is rarely debated rationally, with reason and scientific evidence to back it up.

I generally don't voice an opinion on abortion, because I will never have to make that choice myself. Should I get pregnant, I'll go full term, just for the 10 minutes of fame I'm sure to get from it ;)

But I personally think it is a repulsive idea. I do understand that there are situations that it would be the better option. While there are those on the board that will try to argue (I won't argue the point myself, because it's an opinion, not a fact), I feel that a fetus is a human, it just needs a little time to develop. Using abortion as birth control is, IMHO, very close to murder.

Again, I do understand that there are situations that aren't so clear cut. Rape and incest being two that quickly come to mind.

So, I'm atheist, and I personally abhor the idea of abortion. But, again, I'll never have to make that choice. Worse case, I'll have to advise someone else on their options.

Since I will never have to make that choice, (and never know what it's like to have a being living inside you, that for whatever reason, you don't want) I'll support a womans right to have the option, and hope that they use it with care, and due consideration.

[rwp]

The question we must ask about abortion is: "How can we prevent unwanted pregnancies?"

It seems so elementary to point out, but unwanted pregnancies are behind every decision to have an abortion. If we can effectively use resources to prevent unwanted pregnancies then we may be able to effectively prevent the need for abortions.

[Hokulele]

The question we must ask about abortion is: "How can we prevent unwanted pregnancies?"

It seems so elementary to point out, but unwanted pregnancies are behind every decision to have an abortion. If we can effectively use resources to prevent unwanted pregnancies then we may be able to effectively prevent the need for abortions.


Not really. There are many times when a pregnancy starts out as being wanted, but there are fetal development issues that can endanger the life of the mother. It would be nice to be able to prevent these, and I am sure the medical community is working on it, but pregnancy and child-birth are not simple processes where you can make blanket statements such as this.

[Magenta]

It seems so elementary to point out, but unwanted pregnancies are behind every decision to have an abortion.


As Hokulele pointed out, this is not the case at all. Not every abortion is because of an unwanted pregnancy. I linked to this story in a previous post, but it’s worth reiterating - a very much wanted pregnancy can go very wrong with life-endangering consequences for a woman:

http://disgustedbeyondbelief.blogspot.com/2007/04/my-views-on-abortion.html

[Dorian Gray]

Why would it take a woman 8 or 9 months to decide if she wants a child?

I am against abortions as a method of birth control, by which I mean a wanton method of birth control, i.e., 'if I get pregnant I'll just get an abortion'. Rape and incest, well, it shouldn't take you 8 or 9 months to decide you don't want that child, but I'm okay with a morning after pill. Actually, I think abortions in the last trimester should be completely illegal, and abortions in the first trimester should be completely legal, though as rare as possible. It's that second trimester where I have some trouble deciding what I think.

It bothers me that a woman can decide whether to have the child, but the man can't decide something different. If the woman wants the kid, but the man doesn't, he still may have to pay child support for 18 years. If the man wants the kid but the woman doesn't, the man has no child. I mean, there are adoption advocates all over the place, but for some reason that only applies to two parents keeping the child or two parents giving up the child, but never one parent giving up all rights to the other parent.

I am married, and my wife can't have any more kids, and I don't really want any more kids. But if something happened, divorce, death, affair, whatever, and I got a woman pregnant, I would not want her to have an abortion no matter how "inconvenient" it would be for me.

[rwp]

Not really. There are many times when a pregnancy starts out as being wanted, but there are fetal development issues that can endanger the life of the mother. It would be nice to be able to prevent these, and I am sure the medical community is working on it, but pregnancy and child-birth are not simple processes where you can make blanket statements such as this.

I understand your point against my wording. To clarify, I include any undesireable situations regarding pregnancy. Even if my question doesn't cover every conceiveable scenario it still is a valid one: What can we do to prevent unwanted or undesireable pregancies?

You also point out another reason why a pregnancy would be undesireable: a mother faces a difficult choice against having the baby due to new considerations about her own health.

Yes, it would be nice to be able to prevent the need for such a decision (and the emotional hardship on the mother/family) and that is one important area where we should spend our resources. Medical advancements in childbirth deserve more funding than organizations that support either side of a debate.

I propose we dedicate our resources to preventing undesireable or unwanted pregnancies.

[Hokulele]

I understand your point against my wording. To clarify, I include any undesireable situations regarding pregnancy. Even if my question doesn't cover every conceiveable scenario it still is a valid one: What can we do to prevent unwanted or undesireable pregancies?

You also point out another reason why a pregnancy would be undesireable: a mother faces a difficult choice against having the baby due to new considerations about her own health.

Yes, it would be nice to be able to prevent the need for such a decision (and the emotional hardship on the mother/family) and that is one important area where we should spend our resources. Medical advancements in childbirth deserve more funding than organizations that support either side of a debate.

I propose we dedicate our resources to preventing undesireable or unwanted pregnancies.


I agree. Now, if only someone could convince the Catholic Church that contraception isn't sinful . . .

[Magenta]

Why would it take a woman 8 or 9 months to decide if she wants a child?

I am against abortions as a method of birth control, by which I mean a wanton method of birth control, i.e., 'if I get pregnant I'll just get an abortion'. Rape and incest, well, it shouldn't take you 8 or 9 months to decide you don't want that child, but I'm okay with a morning after pill. Actually, I think abortions in the last trimester should be completely illegal, and abortions in the first trimester should be completely legal, though as rare as possible. It's that second trimester where I have some trouble deciding what I think.


Who is saying that it takes 8 or 9 months to decide on an abortion? I would need to see some pretty compelling evidence to be dissuaded from the view that 3rd trimester abortions are relatively rare and occur only in exceptional circumstances.

It bothers me that a woman can decide whether to have the child, but the man can't decide something different. If the woman wants the kid, but the man doesn't, he still may have to pay child support for 18 years. If the man wants the kid but the woman doesn't, the man has no child. I mean, there are adoption advocates all over the place, but for some reason that only applies to two parents keeping the child or two parents giving up the child, but never one parent giving up all rights to the other parent.


Men have choices too. If they don't want a child, they should take responsibility for contraception - much cheaper than child support. If they do want a child they should choose a compatible partner.

But if something happened, divorce, death, affair, whatever, and I got a woman pregnant, I would not want her to have an abortion no matter how "inconvenient" it would be for me.

Presumably, as this is something you feel strongly about, you would sort out with potential sexual partners whether you had compatible moral stances before you get involved.

ETA: You mentioned your "inconvenience"; would you expect the woman to go through with the pregnancy if it was not something she wanted?

[rwp]

As Hokulele pointed out, this is not the case at all. Not every abortion is because of an unwanted pregnancy. I linked to this story in a previous post, but it’s worth reiterating - a very much wanted pregnancy can go very wrong with life-endangering consequences for a woman:

http://disgustedbeyondbelief.blogspot.com/2007/04/my-views-on-abortion.html (http://disgustedbeyondbelief.blogspot.com/2007/04/my-views-on-abortion.html)

..


Thank you for the link; it is an incredibly emotional situation. I understand his anger... it's similar to the reactions to my earlier post because there really is no blanket to cover every situation.

I also felt that story because our close friend recently went through a stillborn birth. It brought me to tears because for nine months you have this buildup of excitement for your new child, your other children are excited and you teach them about what it will be like to be a big brother/sister to a new little sister. You pick out a name and get ready to bring your child into the world, all of your friends and family are waiting for the good news... and then the situation changes forever.

My only hope is that we can focus on the cause of such issues and work to improve them instead of getting distracted by abortion as a political issue. If we can work to reduce the health issues, the crimes, and other undesireable situations related to pregnancy, then we can reduce the need for abortions. I don't intend this approach to be a one-size-fits-all scenario; I intend this to be a starting point of discussion for improving the overall situation.

[Magenta]

Thank you for the link; it is an incredibly emotional situation. I understand his anger... it's similar to the reactions to my earlier post because there really is no blanket to cover every situation.

I also felt that story because our close friend recently went through a stillborn birth. It brought me to tears because for nine months you have this buildup of excitement for your new child, your other children are excited and you teach them about what it will be like to be a big brother/sister to a new little sister. You pick out a name and get ready to bring your child into the world, all of your friends and family are waiting for the good news... and then the situation changes forever.


That is sad news. We get used to the situation that, thanks to modern medicine, most pregnancies have a happy outcome and it's a shock when that's not the case.

My only hope is that we can focus on the cause of such issues and work to improve them instead of getting distracted by abortion as a political issue. If we can work to reduce the health issues, the crimes, and other undesireable situations related to pregnancy, then we can reduce the need for abortions. I don't intend this approach to be a one-size-fits-all scenario; I intend this to be a starting point of discussion for improving the overall situation.


I agree completely. It causes me no end of annoyance when I see resources diverted to discouraging abortions, rather than to more productive avenues of preventing unwanted pregnancies.

[Silentknight]

Well, yeah, but evolution is a lie, so what's your point?:D

I'm not really for vasectomy/tubal ligation as a regular policy because they are not completely reversible and the pill is so effective.

Yeah, but the pill isn't as foolproof as tube-tying.

Regardless, I would like to make the following observation. I've been in countless abortion debates, and I've found that people can debate back and forth about the morality of abortion for pages on end. The common ground that I think most of us would agree on is that abortions are fundamentally undesirable and should be avoided whenever possible, but what we disagree on how to reduce them. Do we ban them? I hardly think that's feasible, and forcing a woman to keep a pregnancy would be about as immoral as forcing a woman to get an abortion who doesn't want one. Do we prevent them? Now I think we're talking about something far more reasonable.

I think the real issue here is on how we can realistically and safely reduce the number of abortions. Does anyone else have possible solutions to propose? These may include steps that are already being taken. I offered a solution in my previous post, which as it has been pointed out to me, is already being implemented in some places.

[Magenta]

I think the real issue here is on how we can realistically and safely reduce the number of abortions. Does anyone else have possible solutions to propose? These may include steps that are already being taken. I offered a solution in my previous post, which as it has been pointed out to me, is already being implemented in some places.


Off the top of my head, and without having looked at any research into what would be most effective, I'd say comprehensive sex education in all schools would be a good place to start. Also, widespread installation of condom vending machines in appropriate places.

BTW I searched the forum tags and got the following results:

sex education: 3 threads
contraception: 9 threads
abortion: 79 threads

[Fiona]

http://www.bma.org.uk/ap.nsf/Content/AbortionTimeLimits~International

http://www.popline.org/docs/0748/048867.html

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6WH0-45J55DN-1T&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=367f8626570a08d980c85826c778965b

[Magenta]

Well there you go. Thanks Fiona. From the second link (http://www.popline.org/docs/0748/048867.html):

This book, sponsored by the Alan Guttmacher Institute, compares data on teenage reproductive behavior in the US and 35 other developed countries, and then examines in detail 5 countries similar culturally to the US-Canada, England and Wales, France, the Netherlands, and Sweden. The experience of these other countries not only challenges conventional assumptions about the factors that lead to the unusually high rates of abortion and childbearing among US teenagers but also suggests policies that might reduce the incidence of teenage pregnancy in the US. Results show that 1) differences in sexual activity do not explain the pregnancy-rate differentials, 2) the birth and abortion rates of white US adolescents are lower than those of US black teenagers but are still much higher than overall rates in other countries, and 3) the availability of welfare and other forms of support for young mothers does not account for the high teenage pregnancy rates in the US. The primary reason for differences in pregnancy rates appears to be that teenagers in the other countries studied are much more likely than their US counterparts to use contraceptives, particularly the pill. In other countries, contraceptives are made available at low cost through national health or social security systems, and knowledge about sex and contraception is made available through sex education in the schools or through the media. The policy recomendations proposed are based on programs such as these; by following them, the US could greatly reduce unintended pregnancy among its own adolescents.


So I guess people who are morally opposed to abortion are logically also strong advocates for sex education and better and cheaper availability of contraception. :)

[Skeptic Ginger]

Precarious...no.

Difficult, strange, confusing, frustrating...yes. It will, in fact, be the subject of a talk I hope to give at TAM 6, if my paper is accepted. And I've just finished giving a specific example of this in another thread (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=108986) (post number 28, if you want to see it) about atheism; a situation where trying to present rational, scientific beliefs is complicated because it is the "woos" (non-skeptical) individuals who tend to believe me most easily, while the "skeptics" (those who are more rational and logical) are the ones who are generally most resistant and most difficult to convince.

Requires a very different mindset and approach.You'll probably see it, but I replied to post #28 in the other thread.

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=3536528#post3536528

[Skeptic Ginger]

;3532059']No. Miscarriages happen. They are tragic, certainly, but they are not the result of a choice of man or woman to end a pregnancy. It would be pointless to argue against something people had no choice in.But what if you caused the miscarriage. Say you were in premature labor and you were to stay in bed to prevent that labor from progressing. (This happens.) If you refused to stay in bed, would it be manslaughter? Would it be manslaughter if a person caused a vehicle crash that resulted in miscarriage?

There are a number of possibilities here for one to inadvertently but perhaps recklessly cause a miscarriage.

[Skeptic Ginger]

....
I think it is wrong to treat this issue as being decided by one or another single moral principles as Fiona is doing. Abortion is one of those issues where two perfectly good moral precepts come into conflict -- so we must decide to jettison one or balance the two in some sort of compromise. The same thing happens in politics when discussing equality and freedom -- take freedom as the single most important issue and equality suffers, and vice versa.

In this situation we have these two competing issues: the basic human right to life and the right for a person to decide what to do with his or her body.
...Excellent point one rarely hears verbalized.

[Ichneumonwasp]

Yeah, but the pill isn't as foolproof as tube-tying.

Very true. The situation that could occur, though, is that someone who does want to have kids later in life might not be able to have the procedure easily reversed (we're better at it now, but enough fibrosis can screw up anything). I guess it is really just a calculated risk that everyone would have to consider, especially since the pill is not 100% effective and it carries its own risks of strokes, etc. I basically agree that health plans should pay for tubals and vasectomies, but I am just not sure that is the right choice for all concerned. But, I don't know any sphere of life where one size fits all, so it's a minor point.

Regardless, I would like to make the following observation. I've been in countless abortion debates, and I've found that people can debate back and forth about the morality of abortion for pages on end. The common ground that I think most of us would agree on is that abortions are fundamentally undesirable and should be avoided whenever possible, but what we disagree on how to reduce them. Do we ban them? I hardly think that's feasible, and forcing a woman to keep a pregnancy would be about as immoral as forcing a woman to get an abortion who doesn't want one. Do we prevent them? Now I think we're talking about something far more reasonable.

I think the real issue here is on how we can realistically and safely reduce the number of abortions. Does anyone else have possible solutions to propose? These may include steps that are already being taken. I offered a solution in my previous post, which as it has been pointed out to me, is already being implemented in some places.

Totally agree. Ban them? Bad idea. Prevent them? Great idea -- as long as the prevention is truly reversible.

[Skeptic Ginger]

How does it fit the deinition[sic] of sexism?

I would consider the husband equally slutty.....:dig:

Hole's getting deeper there, Kahal.

My body my choice, a moral issue.
Life begins before birth, a moral issue.
Sex outside of marriage between 2 consenting adults, only a moral issue if it's cheating on a partner of one and/or the other's.

Sex without being married, between consenting adults, no cheating involved, not spreading STDs around recklessly or having risky behavior when society is going to have to pay the medical bills, now you are talking arbitrary religious and societal mores, but not a real issue of inherent immorality.

[Cactus Wren]

Who is saying that it takes 8 or 9 months to decide on an abortion? I would need to see some pretty compelling evidence to be dissuaded from the view that 3rd trimester abortions are relatively rare and occur only in exceptional circumstances.

Thank you for pointing this out. I am always astonished at how often anti-choicers invoke this image of a pregnant woman suddenly "deciding", seven or eight months along, that she doesn't want to give birth. As Molly Ivins put it, "No woman seven months pregnant ever waddled past an abortion clinic and said, 'Damn, I knew there was something I'd been meaning to get around to.'"

This healthy-fetus-in-the-eighth-month notion really reveals more about the opponents of choice than it does about the topic of abortion. It reveals how they regard women: as essentially stupid, vicious creatures with no thought but for a moment's pleasure; inhumanly self-centered, slaves to our lusts, lacking even the intelligence to realize that we don't want to be pregnant until we're almost in labor, cheerful murderers of "babies" for our own "convenience," needing to be controlled by the State because we have no self-control of our own.

I challenge any poster here to find even ONE documented case of a woman "deciding", seven or eight months into a healthy pregnancy, that she wanted an abortion.

[X]

But what if you caused the miscarriage. Say you were in premature labor and you were to stay in bed to prevent that labor from progressing. (This happens.) If you refused to stay in bed, would it be manslaughter? Would it be manslaughter if a person caused a vehicle crash that resulted in miscarriage?

There are a number of possibilities here for one to inadvertently but perhaps recklessly cause a miscarriage.



I don't know.
It seems absurd to charge the person with manslaughter, but that leaves me in a contradictory postion, it seems.

I really don't know.

As I said, I only managed to reach my opinion by taking the macroscopic view, which meant I ignored all the minutae and variables.

I'm going to have to think about your point.

[skeptifem]

It bothers me that a woman can decide whether to have the child, but the man can't decide something different. If the woman wants the kid, but the man doesn't, he still may have to pay child support for 18 years. If the man wants the kid but the woman doesn't, the man has no child. I mean, there are adoption advocates all over the place, but for some reason that only applies to two parents keeping the child or two parents giving up the child, but never one parent giving up all rights to the other parent.


taking away child support punishes the child more than the mother. child support exsists for children because they do not ask to be born. they had no choice in the matter of exsisting and needing money to live. dads having to pay is unfair but its the fairest option available (out of making dads pay, depriving children of resources, and forcing women to have abortions).

wtf was all that 8 or 9 months business? no one brought that up but you

[skeptifem]

Thank you for pointing this out. I am always astonished at how often anti-choicers invoke this image of a pregnant woman suddenly "deciding", seven or eight months along, that she doesn't want to give birth. As Molly Ivins put it, "No woman seven months pregnant ever waddled past an abortion clinic and said, 'Damn, I knew there was something I'd been meaning to get around to.'"

This healthy-fetus-in-the-eighth-month notion really reveals more about the opponents of choice than it does about the topic of abortion. It reveals how they regard women: as essentially stupid, vicious creatures with no thought but for a moment's pleasure; inhumanly self-centered, slaves to our lusts, lacking even the intelligence to realize that we don't want to be pregnant until we're almost in labor, cheerful murderers of "babies" for our own "convenience," needing to be controlled by the State because we have no self-control of our own.

I challenge any poster here to find even ONE documented case of a woman "deciding", seven or eight months into a healthy pregnancy, that she wanted an abortion.

I totally agree with your post, it seems like people suggesting this are also probably ignorant of what actually goes into an abortion of a more developed fetus. waiting to do it would be absolutely freaking insane when that is taken into consideration. its a lot more dangerous, complicated, painful and expensive to do that.

[Magenta]

Thank you for pointing this out. I am always astonished at how often anti-choicers invoke this image of a pregnant woman suddenly "deciding", seven or eight months along, that she doesn't want to give birth. As Molly Ivins put it, "No woman seven months pregnant ever waddled past an abortion clinic and said, 'Damn, I knew there was something I'd been meaning to get around to.'"


Yes, I find it strange that discussions of abortion almost inevitably take a detour through the issue of late term abortions. The reality is that they make up a small percentage of the total. For instance, in South Australia (http://www.dh.sa.gov.au/pehs/PDF-files/0712-preg-outcome-report-2006.pdf) in 2006, 4,888 terminations were reported: 91% took place in the first 14 weeks of pregnancy; 1.6% were at or after 20 weeks. 51% of the late terminations were for fetal abnormalities. I see no reason to think the situation would be drastically different elsewhere in Australia.


This healthy-fetus-in-the-eighth-month notion really reveals more about the opponents of choice than it does about the topic of abortion. It reveals how they regard women: as essentially stupid, vicious creatures with no thought but for a moment's pleasure; inhumanly self-centered, slaves to our lusts, lacking even the intelligence to realize that we don't want to be pregnant until we're almost in labor, cheerful murderers of "babies" for our own "convenience," needing to be controlled by the State because we have no self-control of our own.


Yeah, it sucks. We saw a similar patronising attitude here from the previous federal health minister (male and Catholic). He decided there were too many abortions and without researching whether it was needed allocated funding for a national pregnancy counselling hotline. There was a very low uptake as most women were quite capable of making the decision in consultation with their partner and doctor, and didn't require any more counselling than was already available. The money would have been better spent on sex education in schools and sexual health programs.

The legal right to abortion is a done deal (in Australia at least)


I posted in haste on this; the legal situation is more complicated than I allowed. Legislation varies from State to State. In practice, abortion is readily available with an official blind eye turned, for the time being at least, to what is actually in the statute books in some States.

[The Atheist]

I think people treat abortion too black and white. Life vs. choice, rather than appreciate and explore the complexities of this issue.

Excellent thread, well handled, on a touchy subject.

Thank god Huntster ain't here any more, he'd 'a been lining the pro-abortion brigade up against the wall.

Who is saying that it takes 8 or 9 months to decide on an abortion? I would need to see some pretty compelling evidence to be dissuaded from the view that 3rd trimester abortions are relatively rare and occur only in exceptional circumstances.

From the NYT (http://www.pregnantpause.org/abort/definejm.htm) on 3rd trimester abortions. Old, but relevant.

Or, there's the "late term specialists" in Kansas (http://www.drtiller.com/), who have more experience than anyone in +24 week abortions.

But what if you caused the miscarriage. Say you were in premature labor and you were to stay in bed to prevent that labor from progressing. (This happens.) If you refused to stay in bed, would it be manslaughter? Would it be manslaughter if a person caused a vehicle crash that resulted in miscarriage?

There are several cases, in states of USA, as well as here, Oz and UK, where people have been charged with vehicular manslaughter for killing 8 month foetuses while driving drunk.

I challenge any poster here to find even ONE documented case of a woman "deciding", seven or eight months into a healthy pregnancy, that she wanted an abortion.

I do know of one and I'm trying to find it. It happened in Australia a few years back. Zep knows the details, because I can recall him posting it. Unfortunately, I'm persona non grata with him, but feel free to send him a message - the doctors felt the woman would kill herself if left to deliver the baby and the abortion was allowed. I'm pretty sure she was 8 months at the time.

One thing I did find is that +20 week abortions are allowed in Victoria. (http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/content/2005/s1481417.htm)

[Magenta]

From the NYT (http://www.pregnantpause.org/abort/definejm.htm) on 3rd trimester abortions. Old, but relevant.

Or, there's the "late term specialists" in Kansas (http://www.drtiller.com/), who have more experience than anyone in +24 week abortions.


Yes, relatively rare, exceptional circumstances and not to be undertaken lightly.


I do know of one and I'm trying to find it. It happened in Australia a few years back. Zep knows the details, because I can recall him posting it. Unfortunately, I'm persona non grata with him, but feel free to send him a message - the doctors felt the woman would kill herself if left to deliver the baby and the abortion was allowed. I'm pretty sure she was 8 months at the time.


Found it (http://www.abc.net.au/am/content/2006/s1742492.htm). It was heavily politicised and exploited for an ideological agenda - some bastard National Party Senator got hold of the woman's medical files and distributed copies to journalists.

[Kahalachan]

:dig:

Hole's getting deeper there, Kahal.

My body my choice, a moral issue.
Life begins before birth, a moral issue.
Sex outside of marriage between 2 consenting adults, only a moral issue if it's cheating on a partner of one and/or the other's.

Sex without being married, between consenting adults, no cheating involved, not spreading STDs around recklessly or having risky behavior when society is going to have to pay the medical bills, now you are talking arbitrary religious and societal mores, but not a real issue of inherent immorality.


I am not trying to tie any moral factors concerning sex with this. I'm sure in my brain there was some connection to abortion and sex, since sex is the cause, and my train of thought was to point out that while I may feel something is immoral or wrong and should be prevented, it should not be made illegal.

Making suicide illegal is absurd. If successful, who would you prosecute? If failed, jail isn't the best cure for suicide.

But suicide is the person having a say over their body and choosing what to do with it, but the moral thing to do would be to urge them to consider a better alternative not resulting in death.

The reasoning is not that far off from abortion I'd say. Ultimately, if the person really wants to commit suicide we can't stop them. If someone really wants an abortion, we can't stop them. They could smoke, drink, fall on their stomach, etc. I believe more ancient societies did use the purposeful falling technique. So are we going to send people to jail for falling or smoking?

But just because I don't think it should be against the law to be a town drunk, charge people for psychic readings, to attempt suicide, cheat on a spouse, and many other things, I can still express a moral outrage concerning the subject in general.

Just as drinking can be a fine activity in moderation under the right curcumstances, I think aborting an embryo after taking great strides to use protection and not have risky sex, having very limitted financial means to care for it, and in a rare circumstance is fine.

It's all about a time, manner, and place in which we perform certain behaviors.

I think a woman should have an abortion for the same reason a wolf will gnaw off its own leg if caught in a trap. It feels helpless and there is no other way out.

[Cactus Wren]

I challenge any poster here to find even ONE documented case of a woman "deciding", seven or eight months into a healthy pregnancy, that she wanted an abortion.I do know of one and I'm trying to find it. It happened in Australia a few years back. Zep knows the details, because I can recall him posting it. Unfortunately, I'm persona non grata with him, but feel free to send him a message - the doctors felt the woman would kill herself if left to deliver the baby and the abortion was allowed. I'm pretty sure she was 8 months at the time.Found it (http://www.abc.net.au/am/content/2006/s1742492.htm). It was heavily politicised and exploited for an ideological agenda - some bastard National Party Senator got hold of the woman's medical files and distributed copies to journalists.

Bolding mine:

The abortion was conducted at Melbourne's Royal Women's Hospital after a woman threatened suicide when she was told her eight-month-old foetus may have dwarfism.

Still waiting for an instance of a woman "deciding", seven or eight months into a healthy pregnancy, that she wanted an abortion.

[Rasmus]

I think a woman should have an abortion for the same reason a wolf will gnaw off its own leg if caught in a trap. It feels helpless and there is no other way out.

Enlighten me, what is the other way out of a pregnancy that you don't want to go through?

[martu]

The common ground that I think most of us would agree on is that abortions are fundamentally undesirable and should be avoided whenever possible

I disagree with this entirely, abortion should be a viable course open to anyone and should be discussed as a sensible option instead of carrying a child to term.

The biggest problem on the planet is over population (and the consequences of) abortions are a good solution imo.

[martu]

I think a woman should have an abortion for the same reason a wolf will gnaw off its own leg if caught in a trap. It feels helpless and there is no other way out.

Everyone else can see this right? I haven't just hallucinated this garbage?

'It' doesn't want a child so 'it' makes the decision to end the pregnancy for reasons that have nothing to do with you. Helpless how?

[Apreche]

If developed neurons is the standard, then I assume you are vegan?

[skeptifem]

I disagree with this entirely, abortion should be a viable course open to anyone and should be discussed as a sensible option instead of carrying a child to term.

The biggest problem on the planet is over population (and the consequences of) abortions are a good solution imo.


i think you misunderstood. i believe what they were getting at was that in an ideal world people would use birth control consistently and correctly when they dont want children. like it would be nice if people didnt need abortions.

[The Atheist]

Still waiting for an instance of a woman "deciding", seven or eight months into a healthy pregnancy, that she wanted an abortion.

Dwarfism is unhealthy?

Want to shift the goalposts again? Is there a minimum height to ensure the baby will be born not killed?

[martu]

i think you misunderstood. i believe what they were getting at was that in an ideal world people would use birth control consistently and correctly when they dont want children. like it would be nice if people didnt need abortions.

No I see the point but to me an abortion is just another form of birth control no different to using a condom. If you don't think that a blastocyst or an embryo is a person, and it's surely only religious reasons that you could, then an abortion is doing no harm to anyone.*

This is what the morning after pill is after all, it stops a viable zygote from implanting into the uterus wall.

*I'd like to clarify here that I would hope most people would make their minds up early in the pregnancy to make the abortion easier.

[skeptifem]

Dwarfism is unhealthy?

there are many different kinds of dwarfism. some really do cause some awful health complications. Its hard to say if it was a serious thing or not with no other information.

[Cactus Wren]

Dwarfism is unhealthy?

Want to shift the goalposts again? Is there a minimum height to ensure the baby will be born not killed?

Please explain to me how repeating the identical criteria constitutes "shifting the goalposts".

Still waiting for an instance of a woman "deciding", seven or eight months into a healthy pregnancy, that she wanted an abortion.

[The Atheist]

Please explain to me how repeating the identical criteria constitutes "shifting the goalposts".

Still waiting for an instance of a woman "deciding", seven or eight months into a healthy pregnancy, that she wanted an abortion.

Can you not see this?

You asked and I answered. The baby would have been a dwarf. Thanks, Magenta - that is indeed the case. Notice that the article actually says, "may have had dwarfism". It seems that a lot of the information on the case has been removed, due to charges not proceeding, but there was no medical danger to either mother or child present - the entire situation was driven by the psychotic mother threatening to kill herself. As far as i can tell, that fits exactly the situation you were asking for.

I do find it beautifully (if horrifically) ironic that they use the exact same stuff to kill the baby in utero as they do in executions in USA.

there are many different kinds of dwarfism. some really do cause some awful health complications. Its hard to say if it was a serious thing or not with no other information.

Note the above, one thing I am certain of is that there were no physical defects found other than height. Given that the "foetus" was in fact a perfectly viable member of the human race when it was executed, I'm 100% certain that adoptive parents would have been found for the child.

[martu]

I do find it beautifully (if horrifically) ironic that they use the exact same stuff to kill the baby in utero as they do in executions in USA.


It's ironic they use the same method to kill something? What were you expecting one method to use a machete?

[Silentknight]

i think you misunderstood. i believe what they were getting at was that in an ideal world people would use birth control consistently and correctly when they dont want children. like it would be nice if people didnt need abortions.
Yeah, that's what I meant.
No I see the point but to me an abortion is just another form of birth control no different to using a condom. If you don't think that a blastocyst or an embryo is a person, and it's surely only religious reasons that you could, then an abortion is doing no harm to anyone.*

This is what the morning after pill is after all, it stops a viable zygote from implanting into the uterus wall.

*I'd like to clarify here that I would hope most people would make their minds up early in the pregnancy to make the abortion easier.
I didn't think anyone actually viewed abortion as a means of contraception or population control, since it's unreliable in those respects. I do agree with the last thing you said. The part of my post you objected to wasn't the main point though. My question was, what solutions can you propose to prevent unwanted pregnancies and reduce the number of abortions?

[martu]

Yeah, that's what I meant.

I didn't think anyone actually viewed abortion as a means of contraception or population control, since it's unreliable in those respects. I do agree with the last thing you said. The part of my post you objected to wasn't the main point though. My question was, what solutions can you propose to prevent unwanted pregnancies and reduce the number of abortions?

Any sexual encounter outside a long term relationship should involve a condom. Unless you want a baby of course, it's up to you.

[Dr H]

Also to have sex, which is the usual method of conception in most places. Notable exceptions are Brazil, where the lambada is preferred, and Yorkshire, where nobody has sex.

Reminds me of the old joke: Why do Baptists disapprove of having sex while standing?
.
.
.
Because it may lead to dancing.

Ba-da-Boom!

:)

[The Atheist]

It's ironic they use the same method to kill something? What were you expecting one method to use a machete?

A machete would probably be more appropriate if it were being done publicly, but yes, I do find it ironic. Not the same method, the exact same chemicals.

[Dr H]

Should this penis result in ejaculation that leads to conception, fetus hosting will be required for a minimum of thirty-five, but preferrably forty, weeks, during which time you will be expected to eat nutritiously, abstain from alcohol, cigarettes, caffeine, soft cheeses, and tuna. Should you choose not to enter into this contract after erection is achieved, be aware that you will still be expected to provide hand and/or mouth release of said penis.

I've not seen a penis that could fit all those words tattooed onto it, but it is quite funny nonetheless.

Pro-life men are fabulously well-hung. ;)

[Dr H]

Much is made of he viability of the foetus and this is often adduced to continually reduce the time at which abortion can be a choice. This is illogical. If it is viable then let it vie.
Indeed: "unborn baby" is an oxymoron, not unlike "undead corpse."

For the record:

1) I am an atheist.

2) I can imagine circumstances under which I might consider an abortion to be immoral.

3) What I imagine is irrelevant, since the choice is always the woman's.

4) To make that choice should not be illegal, and it should be as safe as possible.

5) As a society we should concern ourselves a good deal more with the children we already
have, before we start worrying about whether we should be forcing people to bring more
of them into the world.

[Tricky]

3) What I imagine is irrelevant, since the choice is always the woman's.
This is a big can of worms. If the woman decides to have the baby and the man wants her to have an abortion, is he required to support the child? Since he had no voice in the decision to have one, it would seem logical that the answer is "no", yet it would seem like this would encourage deadbeat dads.

[skeptifem]

This is a big can of worms. If the woman decides to have the baby and the man wants her to have an abortion, is he required to support the child? Since he had no voice in the decision to have one, it would seem logical that the answer is "no", yet it would seem like this would encourage deadbeat dads.

ugh jeez i am so sick of saying this over and over again

look at your options.

either:

mom is treated unfairly and is forced to abort

the kid is treated unfairly and is denied resources simply for being born

the dad is treated unfairly by having to pay

its not a good situation, but those are the only options available soooo to me the answer is obvious.

[Magenta]

Still waiting for an instance of a woman "deciding", seven or eight months into a healthy pregnancy, that she wanted an abortion.


Quite. I don't see how a reasonable person can exclude the woman's physical and mental wellbeing from "healthy pregnancy".

You asked and I answered. The baby would have been a dwarf. Thanks, Magenta - that is indeed the case. Notice that the article actually says, "may have had dwarfism". It seems that a lot of the information on the case has been removed, due to charges not proceeding, but there was no medical danger to either mother or child present - the entire situation was driven by the psychotic mother threatening to kill herself. As far as i can tell, that fits exactly the situation you were asking for.

[...]

Note the above, one thing I am certain of is that there were no physical defects found other than height. Given that the "foetus" was in fact a perfectly viable member of the human race when it was executed, I'm 100% certain that adoptive parents would have been found for the child.


More details of the case are in this article (http://www.mja.com.au/public/issues/186_07_020407/ger11260_fm.html)in the Medical Journal of Australia:

In late January 2000, a 40-year-old woman (Ms X) was referred to RWH by her general practitioner, having been advised that an ultrasound examination indicated that her 31-week-old fetus might have skeletal dysplasia. Accompanied by her supportive husband, she arrived at the emergency department in a state of great agitation, becoming “hysterical and suicidal, demanding that her pregnancy be terminated”.

After a further ultrasound confirmed the diagnosis of fetal skeletal dysplasia, Ms X was referred to an ultrasonologist, a geneticist, a genetic counsellor, an obstetrician, and a psychiatrist. All confirmed that she was acutely suicidal and would most likely kill herself unless her fetus was aborted. Having rejected all other management options, including adoption of the child, all agreed that an abortion was the only feasible alternative. On the known facts, there was thus never any doubt that this late-term abortion was lawful, undertaken to preserve the woman from serious danger to her life and mental health.

The abortion was carried out in early February 2000 and Ms X delivered a stillborn baby girl. Although she refused an autopsy, a photograph of the baby showed features of achondroplasia.

I should also add that in Victoria where this occurred, fetal abnormality (even a "lethal" abnormality) is not a criterion for abortion.

I think people who want to turn late term abortions (and remember many of these started as wanted pregnancies) into a controversial moral issue ought to consider how the climate this fosters compromises obstetric care. This article (http://www.mja.com.au/public/issues/188_02_210108/dec10804_fm.html), also from the MJA, is well worth reading. It pertains to the situation in Victoria but many of the issues it raises have wider applicability.


5) As a society we should concern ourselves a good deal more with the children we already have, before we start worrying about whether we should be forcing people to bring more of them into the world.


Absolutely

[Magenta]

This is a big can of worms. If the woman decides to have the baby and the man wants her to have an abortion, is he required to support the child? Since he had no voice in the decision to have one, it would seem logical that the answer is "no", yet it would seem like this would encourage deadbeat dads.

[bolding added]

Unless for some reason the man wasn't present at conception, surely he did have some say in whether a pregnancy might occur. Is there any reason why a man who wants to avoid becoming a father can't use a condom? Or even have a vasectomy if he decides he never wants to have children? If he took reasonable precautions and that failed, that's a different matter.

[The Atheist]

Quite. I don't see how a reasonable person can exclude the woman's physical and mental wellbeing from "healthy pregnancy".

You don't think there's any chance the psych team could be fooled? Not suggesting they were in her case, but how hard would it be? Do we know what happened to the woman afterwards?

This article (http://www.mja.com.au/public/issues/188_02_210108/dec10804_fm.html), also from the MJA, is well worth reading. It pertains to the situation in Victoria but many of the issues it raises have wider applicability.

Members only...

[Magenta]

You don't think there's any chance the psych team could be fooled? Not suggesting they were in her case, but how hard would it be? Do we know what happened to the woman afterwards?


I think it would be presumptuous of me to try and second guess people who actually saw the woman and who have professional training that I don't. Not sure what happened after. I imagine she would have had a good case against Senator McGauran for breach of privacy though...

Members only...

Rats. I recommend registration. It's free and only takes a sec.

[The Atheist]

I think it would be presumptuous of me to try and second guess people who actually saw the woman and who have professional training that I don't. Not sure what happened after. I imagine she would have had a good case against Senator McGauran for breach of privacy though...

Surely, being a poli, he'd have used Parliamentary Pivilege anyway? Quite right though, I'm sure friends and family figured out who it was pretty quickly. It would be interesting to know what happened since, though.

I'll go sign up for the site. Cheers.

[AkuManiMani]

Echo.

Obviously, it's repulsive to think that some women may just use abortion as a post hoc means of contraception...but I can't imagine that it's ever an easy decision to make.

On the converse side of things, I think there's an equal repulsion for women who are clearly unfit to have a child who choose to take their pregnancy to term anyways.

Eugenics, anyone? ;)

[martu]

A machete would probably be more appropriate if it were being done publicly, but yes, I do find it ironic. Not the same method, the exact same chemicals.

This must be a definition of ironic I am not aware of.

[Kahalachan]

Everyone else can see this right? I haven't just hallucinated this garbage?

'It' doesn't want a child so 'it' makes the decision to end the pregnancy for reasons that have nothing to do with you. Helpless how?

I think you're reaching. Just because you disagree with my values, you search for parts of what I said to confirm any suspicions of questionable morals in other aspects. Searching for evidence to confirm a conclusion is the opposite way to go.

Obviously "it" refers to the wolf. And the mentality behind a woman having an abortion for good reason, in my opinion, is feeling trapped with no way out.

This was an obvious criticism to the insane pro-lifers who think women stroll around wanting abortions. This is as absurd as thinking wolves would naturally go around gnawing off their leg. They would only do so if completely trapped.

Someone who feels help and has no other recourse, needs our moral support. We can say abortion or suicide is not the best course of action. But rather than condemn, offer a helping hand or better yet, help prevent unwanted pregnancies.

[martu]

I think you're reaching. Just because you disagree with my values, you search for parts of what I said to confirm any suspicions of questionable morals in other aspects. Searching for evidence to confirm a conclusion is the opposite way to go.

Obviously "it" refers to the wolf. And the mentality behind a woman having an abortion for good reason, in my opinion, is feeling trapped with no way out.

This was an obvious criticism to the insane pro-lifers who think women stroll around wanting abortions. This is as absurd as thinking wolves would naturally go around gnawing off their leg. They would only do so if completely trapped.

Someone who feels help and has no other recourse, needs our moral support. We can say abortion or suicide is not the best course of action. But rather than condemn, offer a helping hand or better yet, help prevent unwanted pregnancies.

I'm sorry but it wasn't obvious that 'it' referred to the wolf, at least not to me. Anyway for that I apologise.

An adult is capable of making a decision of the sort "I don't want a child at the moment". This isn't being trapped it's merely choosing.

[ixolite]

This is a little bit of a derail, but it's something I feel strongly about. This post reminded me of the 1970s, when the women's rights movement was really building up steam. There was a big flap about why was the woman the one who always had to worry about birth control? Why couldn't the man, who was sharing the pleasurable experience, also share the work and the worry? There was (and may still be, for all I know) a big push to develop a birth control pill for men.

WHY ON EARTH would a woman choose to abdicate her responsibility for contraception?
Now where did I write THAT? :rolleyes: Nowhere, right? ;) I wrote if BOTH fail to use contraception.

[ixolite]

ETA: @ Elizabeth I. I may be wrong but I do not think anyone is arguing that a woman should abdicate her responsibility for contraception. Rather I think it is reasonable to suppose that men should take responsibility for it too. After all there are men who claim to be aggrieved because a woman has told them she is using the pill but then becomes pregnant; and he is held responsible for any resulting child. This could not happen if he looked after his own fertility: but that says nothing about her not doing the same, does it?
Thank you, you put it well. :)

[skeptifem]

I think you're reaching. Just because you disagree with my values, you search for parts of what I said to confirm any suspicions of questionable morals in other aspects. Searching for evidence to confirm a conclusion is the opposite way to go.

Obviously "it" refers to the wolf. And the mentality behind a woman having an abortion for good reason, in my opinion, is feeling trapped with no way out.

This was an obvious criticism to the insane pro-lifers who think women stroll around wanting abortions. This is as absurd as thinking wolves would naturally go around gnawing off their leg. They would only do so if completely trapped.

why do you think that? do you think every woman would pop out kids if they happened to get knocked up by the right guy? haha. you have no idea what you are talking about here, you are not qualified to tell women how they feel about their own abortions and why they had them, NO ONE is. there are far too many people involved with such diverse life circumstances that its impossible for you to make a statement like that with any amount of certainty. the route youve chosen to go with this (comparing it to a desperate disfiguring action) is especially insulting.

Someone who feels help and has no other recourse, needs our moral support. We can say abortion or suicide is not the best course of action. But rather than condemn, offer a helping hand or better yet, help prevent unwanted pregnancies.
some pro lifers who dont think women troll around wanting abortions. they pretty much say the same stuff as this, but it implies that women need outside help because they arent capable of making the best choice on their own. kind of insulting, dont you think? especially when its required that women are counselled before an abortion to make sure that they really want to go through with it. if there is an issue of mental competance or ignorance it will surface during that time. do you really think women are unaware of adoption or keeping the pregnancy, or do you simply think that women are too hysterical to make a reasonable choice? this brand of bs is especially infuriating because it embraces negetive stereotypes of women under the guise of caring about women. so many pro life crisis pregnancy centers are based on this exact type of thinking.


abortion is the best choice for the woman who chooses it, and she deserves some *********** respect.

[Bob Blaylock]

abortion is the best choice for the woman who chooses it, and she deserves some *********** respect.


Murdering one's own child is not an action that is worthy of any respect.

[Dr H]

This is a big can of worms. If the woman decides to have the baby and the man wants her to have an abortion, is he required to support the child? Since he had no voice in the decision to have one, it would seem logical that the answer is "no", yet it would seem like this would encourage deadbeat dads.

Everything with political ramifications is a can of worms.

Having a baby and rearing a chlid are two different things. Whether to have the baby is, I believe, the woman's choice. Once there is a child, however, both parents, and the community have a responsibility to that child until it is old enough to leave home and get work on its own.

Dad, BTW, did have a voice in the decision: he is in control of his own schlong.

[skeptifem]

Murdering one's own child is not an action that is worthy of any respect.


does an acorn instantly become a tree if i stick it in the ground?

if i pull it out, am i a logger?


and also, you might want to consider starting your own 'abortion is murder' thread because this thread is not about that and as far as i can tell was never intended to go in this direction.

[martu]

Murdering one's own child is not an action that is worthy of any respect.

If you equate an embryo with a child you are a monster who is equating the status and the rights of children to an inert clump of mindless cells.

[The Atheist]

abortion is the best choice for the woman who chooses it, and she deserves some *********** respect.

You're a little guilty of what you were saying above - I don't think you can necessarily make a blanket statement like that.

Young Chinese women - in this country at least - prefer not use contraception and will instead be happy to have an abortion if they should get pregnant. This is a big social issue here at the moment. I refuse to entertain the thought that I should respect someone with that attitude.

Dad, BTW, did have a voice in the decision: he is in control of his own schlong.

I quite agree.

I also think it's a major reason why it's facile to suggest abortion is solely a woman's problem. Right from fertilisation, the life has been jointly created by a male. Why should a woman solely decide the fate of a human being which is technically, legally and morally, half some bloke's?

[Kahalachan]

I'm sorry but it wasn't obvious that 'it' referred to the wolf, at least not to me. Anyway for that I apologise.

An adult is capable of making a decision of the sort "I don't want a child at the moment". This isn't being trapped it's merely choosing.

That's cool :)

And this is where we disagree. I don't think a simple "I don't want" is enough to warrant the ending of human life. Of course this depends on the stage of development.

Human life should be ended as a last recourse.

I think women are no less capable than men in making such important life or death decisions. But I do think either gender should receive support in such a case when the decision arises.

I think many people see the dislike of abortion as synonymous with a distrust of a woman's abilities. And it's not the case.

It just happens to be that humans evolved as placental mammals where the women carry the young for a gestation period of 9 months. Had we evolved to lay eggs like reptiles or birds, then I think my moral position would remain the same. When considering the possibility of ending a developing human life, take into account its stage of development and avoid doing so as much as possible.

Pregnancy is caused by both sexes, so I think both sexes can discuss the morals of abortion. And the ending of human life is an important discussion for people of all walks of life.

[skeptifem]

You're a little guilty of what you were saying above - I don't think you can necessarily make a blanket statement like that.




what?

[The Atheist]

what?

You said:

"abortion is the best choice for the woman who chooses it, and she deserves some *********** respect."

I think it applies in some cases, but in others, the choice earns my contempt.

[martu]

Human life should be ended as a last recourse.


An embryo isn't a human life, a human life to me is something more than a few thousand cells. This is where we differ and we'll probably never agree either.

Thank you for clarifying your position though, I understand it at least.

[martu]

I think it applies in some cases, but in others, the choice earns my contempt.

Can you give some examples where someone making a decision about their body earns your contempt?

[Belz...]

Murdering one's own child is not an action that is worthy of any respect.

Your definition of murder, please. Is killing a Zygote murder, for instance ?

[AkuManiMani]

Your definition of murder, please. Is killing a Zygote murder, for instance ?

Killing a germinating seed is killing a plant. Killing a germinating human is killing a human.

The way I see it, if a woman is so adamant about not having a child that she'd kill it just as its getting it foot in the door of life she should take precautions to make sure it never happens to begin with. Take contraception for instance...or sterilization...

[martu]

Killing a germinating seed is killing a plant. Killing a germinating human is killing a human.


This is so wrong I can't even respond. Do you think that zygotes deserve the same rights as children?

Hypothetical alert - I give you a choice, I'll destroy a petri dish full of fertilised eggs (as happens in IVF treatment every day) or I'll kill a 2 year old child. You have to choose one thing to die. What do you choose?

Fort he record I have never killed or child. Or wanted to for that matter though at 3am this morning before an early meeting.......


The way I see it, if a woman is so adamant about not having a child that she'd kill it just as its getting it foot in the door of life she should take precautions to make sure it never happens to begin with. Take contraception for instance...or sterilization...

What about accidents? Contraception isn't 100%

[AkuManiMani]

This is so wrong I can't even respond. Do you think that zygotes deserve the same rights as children?

Hypothetical alert - I give you a choice, I'll destroy a petri dish full of fertilised eggs (as happens in IVF treatment every day) or I'll kill a 2 year old child. You have to choose one thing to die. What do you choose?

Fort he record I have never killed or child. Or wanted to for that matter though at 3am this morning before an early meeting.......


Oh, gemme a break.

Hows about another hypothetical for yah: Say you have to choose between the death of your own 2 year old child and someone else's. Lets say that your hypothetical child was born severely handicapped and would never grow up to be functional. Could you in good conscience let such a child live at the expense of someone else's child who has a shot at life? What If one euthanized the child in such a way that they didn't suffer -- would that be okay? Being as how your own child will be nothing but a financial and emotional burden, without any hope of leading an independent life, it would only make sense to euthanize it instead of someone else's healthy kid, right.....?


What about accidents? Contraception isn't 100%

Well it just so happens that I'm one of those little accidents.

And, FYI sterilization IS 100% :p

[martu]

Oh, gemme a break.

Hows about another hypothetical for yah: Say you have to choose between the death of your own 2 year old child and someone else's. Lets say that your hypothetical child was born severely handicapped and would never grow up to be functional. Could you in good conscience let such a child live at the expense of someone else's child who has a shot at life? What If one euthanized the child in such a way that they didn't suffer -- would that be okay? Being as how your own child will be nothing but a financial and emotional burden, without any hope of leading an independent life, it would only make sense to euthanize it instead of someone else's healthy kid, right.....?


The two children are equivalent to me, namely they both have rights as dictated by society. I wouldn't kill one child to save another no.

Care to answer my hypothetical? I would destroy the petri dish in a second wouldn't you?


Well it just so happens that I'm one of those little accidents.

And, FYI sterilization IS 100% :p

So?

So anyone who wants to have sex but doesn't want kids at the moment should be sterilised just in case they have an accident?

[Belz...]

Killing a germinating seed is killing a plant. Killing a germinating human is killing a human.

Depends on your definition of "human", but that wasn't my question. I asked if it was murder.

The way I see it, if a woman is so adamant about not having a child that she'd kill it just as its getting it foot in the door of life she should take precautions to make sure it never happens to begin with.

Doesn't always work, you know ? And how about rapes ?

[Belz...]

Well it just so happens that I'm one of those little accidents.

That doesn't help your argument.

[Bob Blaylock]

If you equate an embryo with a child you are a monster who is equating the status and the rights of children to an inert clump of mindless cells.


If we both lived a few centuries ago, you would call me a “monster” for equating the rights of “human being” with those of the lowly Negro. Same thing. A human being is a human being. It is you who denigrates the rights of a class of human beings, and then hypocritically calls me a “monster” because I stand up for the rights of all human beings, including those you would dismiss as somehow sub-human.

It gets down to this: You support and defend the unrestricted slaughter of certain human beings, and I oppose it. I hardly see how this makes me the monster.

[Martin Timothy]

Hi Readers, this is my first post here, this is what I have to say on Abortion.

To willfully kill an unborn child is a crime against the law of man, and a crime against the law of God.

Witness numerous injunctions against unlawful killing generally and abortion / infanticide specifically in The Koran, which also describes the only circumstances when deliberate homicide is lawful. Being just retaliation for unlawful killing following a fair trial, during the course of Jihad or just war against an aggressor, who must first have waged war upon oneself, ones children, ones family or ones country or for capital corruption.

Injunctions and penalties endorsed in Mosaic Law and Christian Testament, which Moslems recognize as proceeding from God.

Since 1970 Abortion has taken billions of lives. This document is a call to Islam and warns the guilty their lives are forfeit in accordance with AL-ISLAM, on which basis it is expected that the number of executions will commensurate with the number of abortions, and thus be in the millions. Anticipating the demise of virtually the entire medical, political and law enforcement establishments world wide, it anticipates the fulfillment of the prophesy of Jesus Christ that, ‘…children shall rise up against their parents, and shall put them to death,’ and heralds a new age of human history.

Edited for breach of Rule 4. Link to removed material (http://www.dockersunion.com/website/DockersUnion/Page3.htm)

[Vincent Vega]

Thank you for pointing this out. I am always astonished at how often anti-choicers invoke this image of a pregnant woman suddenly "deciding", seven or eight months along, that she doesn't want to give birth. As Molly Ivins put it, "No woman seven months pregnant ever waddled past an abortion clinic and said, 'Damn, I knew there was something I'd been meaning to get around to.'"

This healthy-fetus-in-the-eighth-month notion really reveals more about the opponents of choice than it does about the topic of abortion. It reveals how they regard women: as essentially stupid, vicious creatures with no thought but for a moment's pleasure; inhumanly self-centered, slaves to our lusts, lacking even the intelligence to realize that we don't want to be pregnant until we're almost in labor, cheerful murderers of "babies" for our own "convenience," needing to be controlled by the State because we have no self-control of our own.

I challenge any poster here to find even ONE documented case of a woman "deciding", seven or eight months into a healthy pregnancy, that she wanted an abortion.

Congratulations in taking what was a fascinating and reasonable debate on a complex moral issue and returning us to black and white political labeling and strawman bashing that we so know and love.

[Moochie]

I am a human bean and I think abortion is sad.


M.

[Pardalis]

I thought the spelling "Moslem" was derogatory?

[AkuManiMani]

The two children are equivalent to me, namely they both have rights as dictated by society. I wouldn't kill one child to save another no.

The question was if you had to choose which one would it be? Your own child or the other?

Care to answer my hypothetical? I would destroy the petri dish in a second wouldn't you?

Nope. I'm just gunna cop out like you did and say that I'm not going to choose :rolleyes:

So anyone who wants to have sex but doesn't want kids at the moment should be sterilised just in case they have an accident?

I'm just saying that if someone thinks the value of the life of their progeny is a matter of personal convenience then maybe they shouldn't have any at all.

[Dr H]

I also think it's a major reason why it's facile to suggest abortion is solely a woman's problem.
Some may put it that way; I didn't say it was her problem; I said it was her choice.

Right from fertilisation, the life has been jointly created by a male. Why should a woman solely decide the fate of a human being which is technically, legally and morally, half some bloke's?
Do you truly believe that its a human life from the moment of conception, or are you just playing devil's advocate?

Because I don't belive there's a "human being" with a "fate" to be decided until a successful live birth has taken place.

[AkuManiMani]

Depends on your definition of "human", but that wasn't my question. I asked if it was murder.

Its manslaughter.

The way I see it, if a woman is so adamant about not having a child that she'd kill it just as its getting it foot in the door of life she should take precautions to make sure it never happens to begin with.

Doesn't always work, you know ? And how about rapes ?

How about adoptions? If you were the product of a rape would your life be less valuable than that of a non-b@stard child? What percentage of abortion cases are due to rapes anyway? Then again, if a developing fetus is entitled to some legal protection, then what relevance would that have anyway?

[hodgy]

It's my body and my choice. End of story. Patronising idiots and their ideas about "morality" are irrelevant.

You are right - it is your body - borne, of course, out of someone else's body. Someone who did not elect to destroy you - lucky for you. Idiots and morality have surely preserved many's a deserving individual like you (thankfully).

[Magenta]

For those using "murder" and "manslaughter", these are legal terms with specific meanings and don't apply in jurisdictions where abortion is lawful. If you're using these terms to make things more emotive, well go ahead but I'm not sure it lends itself to rational discussion.

I also think it's a major reason why it's facile to suggest abortion is solely a woman's problem. Right from fertilisation, the life has been jointly created by a male. Why should a woman solely decide the fate of a human being which is technically, legally and morally, half some bloke's?


I don't think anyone is saying the man shouldn't be involved in the decision. However, because the medical procedure is on the woman's body not the man's, the ultimate choice is the woman's (except in unusual circumstances – see my post #111).

Congratulations in taking what was a fascinating and reasonable debate on a complex moral issue and returning us to black and white political labeling and strawman bashing that we so know and love.


And yet you didn't comment on the "abortion is murder" remarks or the outright condemnation of late term abortions. Why is that? How are those black and white positions helpful to a reasonable discussion?

You are right - it is your body - borne, of course, out of someone else's body. Someone who did not elect to destroy you - lucky for you. Idiots and morality have surely preserved many's a deserving individual like you (thankfully).


The chances of any one of us not being born are extremely high – I don't see how this is a useful argument against abortion. My "patronising idiots" comment was in response to the tone of the OP.

[vexed]

Hi Readers, this is my first post here, this is what I have to say on Abortion.

To willfully kill an unborn child is a crime against the law of man, and a crime against the law of God.

Think for yourself much?

[Tricky]

Think for yourself much?
Apparently not. Doesn't post much for himself either. That one was cut-and-pasted (http://www.dockersunion.com/website/DockersUnion/Page3.htm). It's been reported.

Why do woos think we can't Google?

[Magenta]

If we both lived a few centuries ago, you would call me a “monster” for equating the rights of “human being” with those of the lowly Negro. Same thing. A human being is a human being. It is you who denigrates the rights of a class of human beings, and then hypocritically calls me a “monster” because I stand up for the rights of all human beings, including those you would dismiss as somehow sub-human.

It gets down to this: You support and defend the unrestricted slaughter of certain human beings, and I oppose it. I hardly see how this makes me the monster.

[bolding added]

If you lived in Australia, say, it would make you out of step with the 80% of the population who approve of a woman's choice to have an abortion. It may be that future generations (hopefully with more reliable, cheaper, easily available contraceptives; universal sex/relationship education, better information on the risk of fetal abnormalities, or any of the other options that would reduce the necessity for abortion) will have a different view, just as we now view slavery and child labour with abhorrence, and abortion will be less frequent. But right now the trend is for increasingly liberal views on abortion. Survey data here shows those with religious affiliations are more likely than not to approve of legal abortion (though they may not wish to avail themselves of it); even the Anglican Church has made an essentially supportive submission to the abortion law reform process in Victoria.

This is the environment I'm familiar with and it seems to me that people sideline themselves from the discussion when they take extreme views and make the issue as divisive and emotive as possible.

[Kahalachan]

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=109145

This topic is very interesting in abortion donations for black fetuses.

This made me wonder if people who are for abortion can understand my moral outrage.


Let's say there is a woman who will sleep with black men but refuses to have their children and aborts solely fetuses that result from black men.

There would be both moral outrage but an understanding that it is can be within a woman's right. Some people might think the same things as a pro-lifer. "She shouldn't have had sex to begin with"


These are my moral standings. It can be legal but I can express moral outrage at the decision depending on circumstances.

[Hokulele]

These are my moral standings. It can be legal but I can express moral outrage at the decision depending on circumstances.


And that is what makes it so hard to take your moral outrage seriously. The fact that for you it can depend on the circumstances states more about your morals regarding sexuality than your morals concerning abortion.

[Kahalachan]

And that is what makes it so hard to take your moral outrage seriously. The fact that for you it can depend on the circumstances states more about your morals regarding sexuality than your morals concerning abortion.

In what manner?

I only care about the ending of a human life, especially if it is conscious.

I am indifferent towards sexual orientation, fetishes, or any other preference. The only time I care about sex is when it is taken without a person's consent (rape), coersion towards someone who is not mentally capable of understanding sexual consent (child molestation), or when it centers around a lie (cheating). I don't consider swinging cheating since they are both being honest to each other about it, so if a married couple wants to have sex with others, that's fine.

So where exactly is the evidence to show that I have any concern about sexuality, especially when I have just now given the circumstances in which I would express moral outrage concerning sexuality?

[Hokulele]

In what manner?

I only care about the ending of a human life, especially if it is conscious.


Re-read the bit that I quoted from you.

These are my moral standings. It can be legal but I can express moral outrage at the decision depending on circumstances.


If you "only care about the ending of a human life", why would the circumstances matter at all? This seems to be a bit of self-contradiction.

I am indifferent towards sexual orientation, fetishes, or any other preference. The only time I care about sex is when it is taken without a person's consent (rape), coersion towards someone who is not mentally capable of understanding sexual consent (child molestation), or when it centers around a lie (cheating). I don't consider swinging cheating since they are both being honest to each other about it, so if a married couple wants to have sex with others, that's fine.

So where exactly is the evidence to show that I have any concern about sexuality, especially when I have just now given the circumstances in which I would express moral outrage concerning sexuality?


Here is the hypothetical you posited as an example of a time when you would be morally outraged.

Let's say there is a woman who will sleep with black men but refuses to have their children and aborts solely fetuses that result from black men.


This appears to be more about being outraged at why she is having an abortion than the fact that she is having one. Which appears to be you expressing outrage more about the fact that she is willing to sleep with people she feels are unworthy of fathering her child.

If your only concern was about the potential for human life, circumstances should never matter to you. Apparently they do, which makes you sound a bit hypocritical.

Please note, I am not accusing you of being hypocritical, more that I think you post what you feel as you feel it and simply don't see the inconsistencies in your arguments. You may want to sit down and really think this issue all the way through. Is abortion ever a morally sound choice, and if so, what consistent framework determines when it is and when it isn't? That is the more revealing question and answer. If your answer is that abortion is never a morally sound choice, well, then some of your previous posts would be in contradiction, and we would have to agree to disagree.

[Kahalachan]

Re-read the bit that I quoted from you.

If you "only care about the ending of a human life", why would the circumstances matter at all? This seems to be a bit of self-contradiction.

Here is the hypothetical you posited as an example of a time when you would be morally outraged.

This appears to be more about being outraged at why she is having an abortion than the fact that she is having one. Which appears to be you expressing outrage more about the fact that she is willing to sleep with people she feels are unworthy of fathering her child.

If your only concern was about the potential for human life, circumstances should never matter to you. Apparently they do, which makes you sound a bit hypocritical.

Please note, I am not accusing you of being hypocritical, more that I think you post what you feel as you feel it and simply don't see the inconsistencies in your arguments. You may want to sit down and really think this issue all the way through. Is abortion ever a morally sound choice, and if so, what consistent framework determines when it is and when it isn't? That is the more revealing question and answer. If your answer is that abortion is never a morally sound choice, well, then some of your previous posts would be in contradiction, and we would have to agree to disagree.

I think there are always going to be exceptions to ending a human life and it always depends on the circumstances. Self defense is the easiest to think of, but there's also mercy killing to prevent suffering.

War is unfortunate and should be avoided. But if it must come to pass, at least kill armed combatants who consent to fight with you. Never unarmed civilians.

Right there I accept that there are circumstances in which a human can be killed and where I would consider certain human killings more acceptable.

Abortion is unfortunate and should be avoided. But if it must come to pass, at least kill an embryo who has no consciousness and cannot feel pain. Never a conscious fetus.

Like war, abortion should be avoided. Not hard to understand. I accept the inevitability of both because of human nature but can still state that I find it immoral a lot of times and wish neither ever had to happen.

[Hokulele]

OK, now it sounds like we are getting closer to an understanding and possibly an agreement. Let's focus on the "I find it immoral a lot of times" statement and see how this looks broken down a bit.

First hypothetical, a pregnancy goes horribly wrong and if the mother carries to term she will die. Is abortion moral or immoral in this case?

If moral, then Mother's Life > Potential Person's Life.
If immoral, then Potential Person's Life > Mother's Life.

So the morality lesson in case one is not so much about abortion per se, but the relative values of the lives of a person who is already born vs. one who isn't. Many people believe that in this case abortion is a moral choice, and a person who is born is more valuable than one who isn't.

Second hypothetical, a woman finds out she is accidentally pregnant (broken condom or some such, let's assume she was trying to avoid it). Is abortion moral or immoral in this case?

If moral, then Mother's Preferences> Human Life.
If immoral, then Human Life > Mother's Preferences.

(Please note, for argument purposes I am using the term Human Life, but I have no interest in the whole "is a fetus a person" argument. I have my opinion on that, others have other opinions. It is all just opinion and I have no problem living with the moral implications of my opinion. I am guessing that my opinion differs fairly drastically from yours. :o)

This is probably the murkiest of any hypothetical and the one most likely to have strong disagreement on both sides of the issue. Here we are weighting a potential life against something much less tangible.

I could go through a bunch more hypotheticals, but hopefully you see my point.

One of the reasons I prefer to break this type of discussion down like this is that it then can be applied to other moral decisions. To use a potentially explosive example, some people on the forum have expressed the sentiment that homosexuals should be put to death for their behavior. This runs directly into the perfect storm combination of both our hypotheticals where one must determine which is more valuable, someone's preferences or someone's life.

[Belz...]

If we both lived a few centuries ago, you would call me a “monster” for equating the rights of “human being” with those of the lowly Negro. Same thing. A human being is a human being. It is you who denigrates the rights of a class of human beings, and then hypocritically calls me a “monster” because I stand up for the rights of all human beings, including those you would dismiss as somehow sub-human.

It gets down to this: You support and defend the unrestricted slaughter of certain human beings, and I oppose it. I hardly see how this makes me the monster.

So, basically you're defending yourself from being called a monster by saying that the monsters are the ones slaughtering young embryos ?

[Belz...]

To willfully kill an unborn child is a crime against the law of man, and a crime against the law of God.

Who ?

Since 1970 Abortion has taken billions of lives.

Billions. Sure.

[Belz...]

I'm just saying that if someone thinks the value of the life of their progeny is a matter of personal convenience then maybe they shouldn't have any at all.

How hopelessly simplistic this view is.

Its manslaughter.

I don't suppose you could come up with a clear definition of WHEN a human is considered a human, to you ? Is a sperm + egg, not already joined, a human ? Is a zygote a human ?

How about adoptions?

Honestly, why would we put the child through all that, assuming he finds a loving family ?

If you were the product of a rape would your life be less valuable than that of a non-b@stard child?

That's not the point. I'm sure most women would prefer NOT to carry the child to term under those circumstances.

What percentage of abortion cases are due to rapes anyway?

Irrelevant.

Then again, if a developing fetus is entitled to some legal protection, then what relevance would that have anyway?

See, a few years back I was pro-life, so to speak. I went through a couple of self-questionings, and eventually a debate with a friend of mine, until I hit the neutral zone, if you will. I'm neither pro-life nor pro-choice, now, because I don't feel I can determine WHEN abortion should stop being acceptable.

Can you do better ?

[Belz...]

Apparently not. Doesn't post much for himself either. That one was cut-and-pasted (http://www.dockersunion.com/website/DockersUnion/Page3.htm). It's been reported.

Why do woos think we can't Google?

Guess I got had! :boggled:

[Belz...]

This made me wonder if people who are for abortion can understand my moral outrage.

Let's say there is a woman who will sleep with black men but refuses to have their children and aborts solely fetuses that result from black men.

There would be both moral outrage but an understanding that it is can be within a woman's right. Some people might think the same things as a pro-lifer. "She shouldn't have had sex to begin with"

But that's HER problem, isn't it ?

The problem with the topic of abortion, I think, is trying to balance the considerations of the mother/father with those of the eventual child. The child's life does not necessarily trump the freedom of the mother, or vice versa. It's a difficult call, but it isn't black-or-white.

I only care about the ending of a human life, especially if it is conscious.

Rest assured, then. Embryos are not concious.

[AkuManiMani]

How hopelessly simplistic this view is.

Simple =/= incorrect.

I don't suppose you could come up with a clear definition of WHEN a human is considered a human, to you ? Is a sperm + egg, not already joined, a human ? Is a zygote a human ?

A human zygote is a human in the same way that an ant larva is an ant. The zygote is not just another one of the mother's somatic cells -- from the time of it's conception it is a genetically distinct entity whose entire existence is tied up with its handful of cells. A zygote is just another developmental stage of a human being; To kill those cells is to kill a budding human. Of course, it should not have the same legal status as a child in much the same was that a child doesn't have the legal status of an adult but it should have some legal protection above and beyond that of a cheek cell or the irresponsible whim of its host mother. The killing of a zygote is comparable to manslaughter or euthanasia.

Honestly, why would we put the child through all that, assuming he finds a loving family ?

Oh, yes because death is preferable to adoption? :rolleyes:


If you were the product of a rape would your life be less valuable than that of a non-b@stard child?

That's not the point. I'm sure most women would prefer NOT to carry the child to term under those circumstances.

So the value of your life is determined by whats psychologically convenient for your mother? Interesting...

What percentage of abortion cases are due to rapes anyway?

Irrelevant.

Agreed. Why'd you bring up that red herring anyway?


See, a few years back I was pro-life, so to speak. I went through a couple of self-questionings, and eventually a debate with a friend of mine, until I hit the neutral zone, if you will. I'm neither pro-life nor pro-choice, now, because I don't feel I can determine WHEN abortion should stop being acceptable.

Can you do better ?

Of course I can. Its not as philosophically difficult as you make it out to be.

The only time I consider it an ethical option is when its a matter of life and death -- not when its a matter of whats necessarily convenient. The moment a parent generates a new life that parent is responsible for that life until it can take care of itself. Whats economically or psychologically convenient for that parent doesn't hold a candle to the value of that developing life.

[Belz...]

Simple =/= incorrect.

I didn't say "simple", I said "simplistic", and that word is certainly used to mean "incorrect" in some way or another.

A human zygote is a human in the same way that an ant larva is an ant.

A larvae is a newborn, not a fertilised egg. Nice try.

The zygote is not just another one of the mother's somatic cells -- from the time of it's conception it is a genetically distinct entity whose entire existence is tied up with its handful of cells.

And yet it is not viable.

...but it should have some legal protection above and beyond that of a cheek cell or the irresponsible whim of its host mother. The killing of a zygote is comparable to manslaughter or euthanasia.

Why ? You say it but I see no reason to think so.

Oh, yes because death is preferable to adoption? :rolleyes:

Strawman.

So the value of your life is determined by whats psychologically convenient for your mother? Interesting...

Who said anything about psychological convenience ? Now you're making the zygote more important than the freedom of the mother. Whose convenience is that ?

Agreed. Why'd you bring up that red herring anyway?

I merely mentioned that it was part of it. Your asking for percentages IS irrelevant.

The only time I consider it an ethical option is when its a matter of life and death -- not when its a matter of whats necessarily convenient.

It's not a matter of convenience but of freedom, something the child is yet to have, many say.

The moment a parent generates a new life that parent is responsible for that life until it can take care of itself. Whats economically or psychologically convenient for that parent doesn't hold a candle to the value of that developing life.

That sounds remarkably like Christian preaching. Would you care to elaborate ?

[AkuManiMani]

A larvae is a newborn, not a fertilised egg. Nice try.

A larva is a developmental stage thats physiologically distinct from and adult ant. A zygote/blastocyst/embryo/fetus is also a physiologically distinct developmental stage preceding its adult form. Throughout all of a person's developmental stages they are still the same individual. Tho their legal privileges vary from stage to stage they still have the same fundamental right to live thought out all of them.


The zygote is not just another one of the mother's somatic cells -- from the time of it's conception it is a genetically distinct entity whose entire existence is tied up with its handful of cells.

And yet it is not viable.

Indeed. It is entirely dependent on its host mother in much the same way that an infant is -- even more so actually. As the organism develops it becomes more and more able to support itself. What I'm arguing is that the parent(s) has a responsibility to support this development.

...but it should have some legal protection above and beyond that of a cheek cell or the irresponsible whim of its host mother. The killing of a zygote is comparable to manslaughter or euthanasia.

Why ? You say it but I see no reason to think so.

Thats because you're utilizing the wonderful magic of cut+paste. If you include the rest of that paragraph I clearly state my reasoning for this:

A human zygote is a human in the same way that an ant larva is an ant. The zygote is not just another one of the mother's somatic cells -- from the time of it's conception it is a genetically distinct entity whose entire existence is tied up with its handful of cells. A zygote is just another developmental stage of a human being; To kill those cells is to kill a budding human. Of course, it should not have the same legal status as a child in much the same was that a child doesn't have the legal status of an adult but it should have some legal protection above and beyond that of a cheek cell or the irresponsible whim of its host mother. The killing of a zygote is comparable to manslaughter or euthanasia.

The fact that the zygote/embryo/fetus has no consciousness does not change the fact that it is biologically distinct from the body of the mother. Ergo, what the mother decides concerning its fate is not merely a question of her life but also that distinct developing life. Being as how it has not developed consciousness at this stage the ending of its life [and it IS alive by any biological definition] is comparable to painless euthanasia.



Honestly, why would we put the child through all that, assuming he finds a loving family ?

Oh, yes because death is preferable to adoption?

Strawman.

Well, considering that you're arguing that its preferable to end the child's existence rather than simply put it up for adoption after its born, I would have to disagree. Just a few months before you would have considered that same child expendable biological garbage so I find it somewhat silly that now, all of a sudden, you would be so concerned about it going thru the supposed hardship of being passed on to parents that actually want it.


Who said anything about psychological convenience ? Now you're making the zygote more important than the freedom of the mother. Whose convenience is that ?

Obviously, if a mother does not want to bring a rape child to term then it is for her own psychological reasons. Clearly, she does not want to carry the b@stard of the b@stard who raped her and she sure as h3LL doesn't want to raise said b@stard's child afterward. The psychological reasons for this are obvious.

The entire existence of a child is tied to that developing zygote. Saying that the mother has the "freedom" to kill the zygote is the same as saying that she has the "freedom" to end the existence of the child. Its not a question of the mother's "freedom"; its a question of the fundamental right for her progeny to live. I'm arguing that the existence of the germinating child has precedent over the whim of it's mother in much the same way that it does after its brought to term.


I merely mentioned that [rape] was part of it. Your asking for percentages IS irrelevant.

And my point was that that itself is irrelevant. If I were the product of rape my life still has the same value as a child who was planed.


It's not a matter of convenience but of freedom, something the child is yet to have, many say.

It IS an issue of whats convenient for the mother. Carrying a child for nearly a year and then raising it for two decades is very inconvenient. This inconvenience is THE primary motivation for getting an abortion to begin with. The mother is stuck with being responsible for the life of her child and hence her "freedom" is more limited. The mother [who is presumably an adult] has more freedoms than a child because it is assumed that as an adult she has the faculties of one and will behave in a responsible manner. A zygote/embryo/fetus/child is not sufficiently developed enough to make decisions for itself so its parent is responsible for it. The child does not have the privileges [and responsibilities] of an adult but it DOES have the fundamental right to live that trumps the mother's alleged "right" to end it. The mother has the right to reproductive freedom. This means that she has the right to choose when she will reproduce or if she will reproduce. Once the child is conceived its already produced and the mother has an inherent responsibility to it.


The moment a parent generates a new life that parent is responsible for that life until it can take care of itself. Whats economically or psychologically convenient for that parent doesn't hold a candle to the value of that developing life.

That sounds remarkably like Christian preaching. Would you care to elaborate ?

Well if the Christians happen to agree with me then I guess they got something right. Even a stopped clock is right twice a day, as they say.

As to whether I care to elaborate -- I already have.

[Belz...]

A larva is a developmental stage thats physiologically distinct from and adult ant. A zygote/blastocyst/embryo/fetus is also a physiologically distinct developmental stage preceding its adult form. Throughout all of a person's developmental stages they are still the same individual. Tho their legal privileges vary from stage to stage they still have the same fundamental right to live thought out all of them.

That is a mantra, not an argument.

What I'm arguing is that the parent(s) has a responsibility to support this development.

Yes, and others claim the opposite. Other than your opinion, what do you have ?

Thats because you're utilizing the wonderful magic of cut+paste.

That is an interesting, but wrong, speculation.

The fact that the zygote/embryo/fetus has no consciousness does not change the fact that it is biologically distinct from the body of the mother.

Who said anything about consciousness or biological distinction ?

Ergo, what the mother decides concerning its fate is not merely a question of her life but also that distinct developing life.

Yes, and how do you determine what is acceptable and what is not ? Is abortion ALWAYS unacceptable ? If not, what are the acceptable exceptions ? Is a cell a full human from the time of conception ? If so, why is it not so a second before ? And, if not, why would it be a week later ?

Being as how it has not developed consciousness at this stage the ending of its life [and it IS alive by any biological definition] is comparable to painless euthanasia.

Do you support painless euthanasia of braindead invidivuals ?

Well, considering that you're arguing that its preferable to end the child's existence rather than simply put it up for adoption after its born, I would have to disagree.

I argued no such thing. I've simply said that, since abortion is quite legal in the early stages of pregnancy, I see no reason to a) force the mother to carry the child to term and b) put the kid through the process of adoption.

Just a few months before you would have considered that same child expendable biological garbage

Don't try to manipulate my emotions with your strawman rhetoric. I never said it was garbage. Deciding to abort is a tough decision.

so I find it somewhat silly that now, all of a sudden, you would be so concerned about it going thru the supposed hardship of being passed on to parents that actually want it.

That you imply that I do not care for the hardship endured by humans is insulting.

Obviously, if a mother does not want to bring a rape child to term then it is for her own psychological reasons. Clearly, she does not want to carry the b@stard of the b@stard who raped her and she sure as h3LL doesn't want to raise said b@stard's child afterward. The psychological reasons for this are obvious.

What you are describing is not what I would call "convenience".

The entire existence of a child is tied to that developing zygote. Saying that the mother has the "freedom" to kill the zygote is the same as saying that she has the "freedom" to end the existence of the child.

Yes, at that stage of the development, sure.

Its not a question of the mother's "freedom"; its a question of the fundamental right for her progeny to live.

You are fundamentally incorrect: it is a question of determine which of the two has precedence, and the law says that, before a certain time, the mother's decision has precedence and, after that time, the child's human rights do.

And my point was that that itself is irrelevant. If I were the product of rape my life still has the same value as a child who was planed.

How does that relate to anything I said ? Who said that children of rape were any less important ? Your use of strawmen armies is getting quite boring.

This inconvenience is THE primary motivation for getting an abortion to begin with. The mother is stuck with being responsible for the life of her child and hence her "freedom" is more limited.

Why are we putting "freedom" in scare quotes, now ?

The child does not have the privileges [and responsibilities] of an adult but it DOES have the fundamental right to live that trumps the mother's alleged "right" to end it.

WHY ? I do believe you giving me a reason for this could end this conversation, right here.

The mother has the right to reproductive freedom. This means that she has the right to choose when she will reproduce or if she will reproduce. Once the child is conceived its already produced and the mother has an inherent responsibility to it.

You say she has a right and then proceed to say it's not reversible.

Well if the Christians happen to agree with me then I guess they got something right. Even a stopped clock is right twice a day, as they say.

And what they say is wrong.

[AkuManiMani]

A larva is a developmental stage thats physiologically distinct from and adult ant. A zygote/blastocyst/embryo/fetus is also a physiologically distinct developmental stage preceding its adult form. Throughout all of a person's developmental stages they are still the same individual. Tho their legal privileges vary from stage to stage they still have the same fundamental right to live thought out all of them.

That is a mantra, not an argument.

Thats a relabeling, not an argument.


What I'm arguing is that the parent(s) has a responsibility to support this development.

Yes, and others claim the opposite. Other than your opinion, what do you have ?

If others claimed that infanticide was morally acceptable would your objection be mere opinion?


Who said anything about consciousness or biological distinction ?

[1]Consciousness:

The developing embryo's lack of consciousness is one of the main justifications for considering it a non-person. This status of non-personhood makes it morally acceptable to abort it.


[2]Biological Distinction:

A second justification for abortion is "its the woman's body -- ergo abortion is okay". I was addressing the fact that the zygote/embryo/fetus is not part of the womans body, hence she does not have a sovereign right to terminate it based on such a premise.

Yes, and how do you determine what is acceptable and what is not ? Is abortion ALWAYS unacceptable ?

I clearly stated earlier that it is morally acceptable if the pregnancy put the life of the mother [and by extension the child] at stake.

Is a cell a full human from the time of conception ? If so, why is it not so a second before ? And, if not, why would it be a week later ?

The cell is not "fully human" but it is still human and -- in the case of a fertilized egg -- it is a distinct individual human. Its not merely a [I]potential human [as would be the case of a somatic cell] but it is a developing human. Of someone were to terminate the embryo of Albert Einstein they would have terminated Einstein. If one were to terminate the embryo of Adolf Hitler they would have terminated Hitler. Tho they are not full manifest at the time of their conception they both exists as separate entities and not just another cell of their parent's somatic line that should be subject to their personal whim.


Do you support painless euthanasia of braindead invidivuals ?

Personally, I see no particularly strong reason to object to it -- tho some could possibly be raised. The difference between a broken, braindead, individual and a developing embryo is that while the vegetable is only potentially conscious the embryo is a developing consciousness with a life ahead of it.


Well, considering that you're arguing that its preferable to end the child's existence rather than simply put it up for adoption after its born, I would have to disagree.

I argued no such thing. I've simply said that, since abortion is quite legal in the early stages of pregnancy, I see no reason to a) force the mother to carry the child to term and b) put the kid through the process of adoption.

Why stop there? Why not just make infanticide legal? It would save the mother millions of dollars in the long run and the child would not have to suffer the hardships of growing up and facing life's troubles.


Don't try to manipulate my emotions with your strawman rhetoric. I never said it was garbage. Deciding to abort is a tough decision.

It wouldn't be a tough decision if the woman didn't recognize their unborn child's inherent value. It's just not as difficult a decision as putting a pillow over their baby's face because, in the case of an abortion, they don't have to look their child in the eye before they have it terminated. Considering the subject matter, if my rhetoric doesn't evoke any emotions then it's poor rhetoric.


so I find it somewhat silly that now, all of a sudden, you would be so concerned about it going thru the supposed hardship of being passed on to parents that actually want it.

That you imply that I do not care for the hardship endured by humans is insulting.

Your statement that an unwanted child is better aborted than adopted implies that itself. If you don't like the implications of your statement then perhaps you should modify your position somewhat.

Obviously, if a mother does not want to bring a rape child to term then it is for her own psychological reasons. Clearly, she does not want to carry the b@stard of the b@stard who raped her and she sure as h3LL doesn't want to raise said b@stard's child afterward. The psychological reasons for this are obvious.

What you are describing is not what I would call "convenience".

You're right. Its a terrible burden that the mother who chooses to abort is attempting to alleviate. IMO, in such a situation there are two victims: the raped woman and the conceived child. Aborting the child doesn't right the wrong or improve anything.


Its not a question of the mother's "freedom"; its a question of the fundamental right for her progeny to live.

You are fundamentally incorrect: it is a question of determine which of the two has precedence, and the law says that, before a certain time, the mother's decision has precedence and, after that time, the child's human rights do.

And the law once said that a slave owner had the right to kill his property. The right to live is inherent and not something thats granted by law. It is the law that must recognize this fact; when it doesn't it is an unjust law that must be changed.


How does that relate to anything I said ? Who said that children of rape were any less important ? Your use of strawmen armies is getting quite boring.

If its justifiable to abort a child produced by rape then that directly implies that their life is less valuable than a planed child. If rape is not a justification for abortion then you shouldn't have brought it up as a supporting argument.

Strawmen indeed...


The child does not have the privileges [and responsibilities] of an adult but it DOES have the fundamental right to live that trumps the mother's alleged "right" to end it.

WHY ? I do believe you giving me a reason for this could end this conversation, right here.

"WHY"!?!?!? Are you serious?

Because its wrong for a mother to kill her own child just because she doesn't want it -- thats why! Its an axiomatic moral. Are you seriously arguing that an unwanted child's life is forfeit? Jebus Fackin' Kristi...

The mother has the right to reproductive freedom. This means that she has the right to choose when she will reproduce or if she will reproduce. Once the child is conceived its already produced and the mother has an inherent responsibility to it.

You say she has a right and then proceed to say it's not reversible.

Theres a threat that many mothers like to make to their naughty children:"I broughtcha' into this world and I can take you out of it!"

Acting out on such a threat isn't an exercise of reproductive freedom. Its murder.

[Belz...]

Thats a relabeling, not an argument.

Fine, play your games.

If others claimed that infanticide was morally acceptable would your objection be mere opinion?

If I just said I didn't agree, yes. If I could support my opinion, no.

A second justification for abortion is "its the woman's body -- ergo abortion is okay". I was addressing the fact that the zygote/embryo/fetus is not part of the womans body, hence she does not have a sovereign right to terminate it based on such a premise.

I'm not concerned about it being "part of her body" as much as the consequences on her freedom should I force her to carry the child to term and raise it.

I clearly stated earlier that it is morally acceptable if the pregnancy put the life of the mother [and by extension the child] at stake.

I remember. Are there other circumstances ?

The cell is not "fully human" but it is still human

That makes no sense, whatsoever.

Its not merely a potential human [as would be the case of a somatic cell] but it is a developing human.

Again, depending on your definition of human. Still waiting on that.

Personally, I see no particularly strong reason to object to it -- tho some could possibly be raised. The difference between a broken, braindead, individual and a developing embryo is that while the vegetable is only potentially conscious the embryo is a developing consciousness with a life ahead of it.

Seems irrelevant, to me. The embryo HAS no consciousness YET.

Why stop there? Why not just make infanticide legal? It would save the mother millions of dollars in the long run and the child would not have to suffer the hardships of growing up and facing life's troubles.

Perhaps, but that's another can of worms.

It wouldn't be a tough decision if the woman didn't recognize their unborn child's inherent value.

If that's not a religious statement, I don't know what is. You're preaching, Aku.

It's just not as difficult a decision as putting a pillow over their baby's face because, in the case of an abortion, they don't have to look their child in the eye before they have it terminated.

Whatever makes you happy. Appeal to emotion noted.

Your statement that an unwanted child is better aborted than adopted implies that itself.

That's because your grasp of English is poor. Not my problem.

You're right. Its a terrible burden that the mother who chooses to abort is attempting to alleviate. IMO, in such a situation there are two victims: the raped woman and the conceived child. Aborting the child doesn't right the wrong or improve anything.

That's because you're seeing the child like I did before I realised that pro-life had no real case. In short, you have no argument except your "feeling" about it.

And the law once said that a slave owner had the right to kill his property.

It doesn't say so now. Perhaps you should read what I write instead of having a discussion with yourself.

The right to live is inherent and not something thats granted by law. It is the law that must recognize this fact; when it doesn't it is an unjust law that must be changed.

Then maybe we should go the way of those extremist buddhists who can't bear the thought of killing earthworms.

If its justifiable to abort a child produced by rape then that directly implies that their life is less valuable than a planed child.

Ridiculous. Your argument makes no sense at all. I never said that rape children were MORE justifiably aborted. This is a strawman you've been walsing with for a couple of posts, now.

"WHY"!?!?!? Are you serious?

Because its wrong for a mother to kill her own child just because she doesn't want it -- thats why! Its an axiomatic moral. Are you seriously arguing that an unwanted child's life is forfeit? Jebus Fackin' Kristi...

It seems pointless to continue to argue with you, Aku. It is readily apparent that you are far too emotionally invested in this issue to be objective about it.

[AkuManiMani]

If others claimed that infanticide was morally acceptable would your objection be mere opinion?


If I just said I didn't agree, yes. If I could support my opinion, no.

Support your opinion with what? Facts that the person making the proposal somehow isn't privy to?

I'll play devil's advocate here and take the affirmative position: The child makes no contribution to society and is nothing but a material and emotional drain on its mother. The mother should have the right to terminate the child at any point before legal adulthood, provided the death is overseen by a licensed professional.

How would you go about supporting the negative position?

The fact of the matter is that the subject in question is ethical in nature -- meaning that one's position concerning the topic are fundamentally based upon subjective value judgments. Two parties can be privy to the same empirical facts on a subject but still hold differing ethical positions -- they have differing weights of ethical priority that they apply to the entities and facts in question. In my case I place human life higher on my list of ethical priorities than economic or personal whim.

I'm not concerned about it being "part of her body" as much as the consequences on her freedom should I force her to carry the child to term and raise it.

No one said she had to raise the child. Theres quite a market out there for people who can't conceive their own children but would like to raise them. I ask why should the personal whim of the mother take precedent over the life of their own child?


I clearly stated earlier that it is morally acceptable if the pregnancy put the life of the mother [and by extension the child] at stake.

I remember. Are there other circumstances ?

I can think of none at the moment.


The cell is not "fully human" but it is still human

That makes no sense, whatsoever.

Fine, I'll clarify: The zygote is human but, being as how it is not a fully developed human, It should have a different legal status reflecting this in much the same way that a minor has a differing legal status than an adult.


Its not merely a potential human [as would be the case of a somatic cell] but it is a developing human.

Again, depending on your definition of human. Still waiting on that.

An example of the species Homosapien Sapien. A zygote is an example of a developmental stage of an individual homosapien; ergo, it is a human.

Seems irrelevant, to me. The embryo HAS no consciousness YET.

So. By that reasoning all a person would need to do to legally murder someone would be to make sure they render the person unconscious or comatose before doing the deed.

Why stop there? Why not just make infanticide legal? It would save the mother millions of dollars in the long run and the child would not have to suffer the hardships of growing up and facing life's troubles.

Perhaps, but that's another can of worms.

And with that can of worms comes the implication that our own lives can be made forfeit as well. If an infant's life can be legally taken for personal and economic reasons why should you or I not be subject to the same status? Maybe we should start euthanizing homeless people to relieve the financial burden on the rest of society?

It wouldn't be a tough decision if the woman didn't recognize their unborn child's inherent value.

If that's not a religious statement, I don't know what is. You're preaching, Aku.

I guess you just don't know what a religious statement is. That was a purely ethical statement.

It's just not as difficult a decision as putting a pillow over their baby's face because, in the case of an abortion, they don't have to look their child in the eye before they have it terminated.

Whatever makes you happy. Appeal to emotion noted.

The subject in question is purely of a psychosocial and ethical nature. The above statement is factually true and emotionally loaded; as it should be. If it somehow appeals to your own poorly developed emotions then the statement is both true and rhetorically effective.


Your statement that an unwanted child is better aborted than adopted implies that itself.

That's because your grasp of English is poor. Not my problem.

Thats because your thinking on the subject is slipshod. We'll take this one step at a time then: If a woman does not want the child she is carrying should she abort it or put it up for adoption? Your answer:

Honestly, why would we put the child through [the process of adoption], assuming he finds a loving family ?

Of the two choices you obviously find abortion the preferable solution. Ergo, the child is better aborted than adopted. My grasp of both english and the logic that follows from your statement is just fine.


You're right. Its a terrible burden that the mother who chooses to abort is attempting to alleviate. IMO, in such a situation there are two victims: the raped woman and the conceived child. Aborting the child doesn't right the wrong or improve anything.

That's because you're seeing the child like I did before I realised that pro-life had no real case. In short, you have no argument except your "feeling" about it.

"Feeling" is the the foundation of ethics. If I didn't have any "feeling" concerning the life of another individual there would be no logical reason why I shouldn't be a sociopath. The basis for your belief that the woman has the sacred-cow-right to kill her offspring is itself based upon the "feeling" that her freedom to do so is of ethical importance. Your position is itself based upon a subjective value judgment -- and a flawed one at that.


And the law once said that a slave owner had the right to kill his property. The right to live is inherent and not something thats granted by law. It is the law that must recognize this fact; when it doesn't it is an unjust law that must be changed.

It doesn't say so now. Perhaps you should read what I write instead of having a discussion with yourself.

You're missing the point. Perhaps you should pay closer attention to what I'm actually arguing. Lets go back to what was originally said:

Its not a question of the mother's "freedom"; its a question of the fundamental right for her progeny to live.

You are fundamentally incorrect: it is a question of determine which of the two has precedence, and the law says that, before a certain time, the mother's decision has precedence and, after that time, the child's human rights do.

My point is that what the law says means squat if it is ethically wrong. What you were doing in that statement was placing legal a precedent on the same moral pedestal that fundies place their scriptures. The law doesn't grant the right to live any more than an imaginary god grants the right to live -- the right is inherent. The fact that it is legal to kill and unborn child is irrelevant to the question of whether or not it is ethical.


The right to live is inherent and not something thats granted by law. It is the law that must recognize this fact; when it doesn't it is an unjust law that must be changed.

Then maybe we should go the way of those extremist buddhists who can't bear the thought of killing earthworms.

Since you're now comparing human life to that of earthworms maybe we should go the way of state sanctioned euthanasia of any individuals considered undesirable. There would be nothing logically wrong with painlessly killing some unwanted people for the sake of societal harmony, right?

If its justifiable to abort a child produced by rape then that directly implies that their life is less valuable than a planed child.

Ridiculous. Your argument makes no sense at all. I never said that rape children were MORE justifiably aborted. This is a strawman you've been walsing with for a couple of posts, now.

Then why use instances of rape as a supporting argument for abortion? You repeatedly make questionable supporting arguments and when I challenge them you accuse me if making strawman arguments. The thing that is ridiculous here is your willingness to withdraw from your fallacious supporting arguments while accusing me of strawmanning when I shoot them down.


It seems pointless to continue to argue with you, Aku. It is readily apparent that you are far too emotionally invested in this issue to be objective about it.

I find your appeals for emotionless objectivity in a discussion of ethics both perplexing and amusing. There is no such thing as "objective" ethics.

[Belz...]

I'll play devil's advocate here and take the affirmative position: The child makes no contribution to society and is nothing but a material and emotional drain on its mother. The mother should have the right to terminate the child at any point before legal adulthood, provided the death is overseen by a licensed professional.

What I'm trying to understand is HOW you determine when the child is a human. When he has a full set of genes ? Why this moment, specifically ?

The fact of the matter is that the subject in question is ethical in nature meaning that ones position concerning the topic are fundamentally based subjective value judgments.

In which case no consensus can ever be reached.

I ask why should the personal whim of the mother take precedent over the life of their own child?

Whim. Euphemism, much ?

Fine, I'll clarify: The zygote is human but, being as how it is not a fully developed human, It should have a different legal status reflecting this in much the same way that a minor has a differing legal status than an adult.

Okay, why do you give it a different legal status, and why should we ? I'm not being obtuse, I'm trying to understand why you are distinguishing zygote from child legally but not in terms of right to live.

An example of the species Homosapien Sapien. A zygote is an example of a developmental stage of an individual homosapien; ergo, it is a human.

That's odd. Homo erectus was also human, but not of the same species. That's nitpicking, mind you, but I think "human" is not just about genes.

So. By that reasoning all a person would need to do to legally murder someone would be to make sure they render the person unconscious or comatose before doing the deed.

Non sequitur. I never said that the FACT that the embryo has no consciousness makes it okay. What I mean is that you are using "potential" as some sort of an argument, but it isn't. What it may become later is outweighed by what is now.

And with that can of worms comes the implication that our own lives can be made forfeit as well. If an infant's life can be legally taken for personal and economic reasons why should you or I not be subject to the same status? Maybe we should start euthanizing homeless people to relieve the financial burden on the rest of society?

As I said, different subject. I'm trying to understand why you put the limit at conception when most of civilised society disagrees with you (and with me a few years back).

The subject in question is purely of a psychosocial and ethical nature. The above statement is factually true and emotionally loaded; as it should be. If it somehow appeals to your own poorly developed emotions then the statement is both true and rhetorically effective.

That's what I said in my previous post. You are unable to examine this subject impartially.

Of the two choices you obviously find abortion the preferable solution. Ergo, the child is better aborted than adopted. My grasp of both english and the logic that follows from your statement is just fine.

It's interesting that you used my answer but not the original question to make your case. In any event, I didn't say one was necessarily preferable to the other. In fact, that's my whole point.

"Feeling" is the the foundation of ethics. If I didn't have any "feeling" concerning the life of another individual there would be no logical reason why I shouldn't be a sociopath.

That's because you don't understand the very logical reasons for ethical behaviour.

he basis for your belief that the woman has the sacred-cow-right to kill her offspring is itself based upon the "feeling" that her freedom to do so is of ethical importance.

False.

Your position is itself based upon a subjective value judgment -- and a flawed one at that.

It is your opinion that it is flawed. You don't own morality, Aku.

My point is that what the law says means squat if it is ethically wrong.

Yes, and again you didn't read what I said. You're reading the words but you seem to be forgetting the context. I didn't use the law as an argument, but as a mere statement of fact.

What you were doing in that statement was placing legal a precedent on the same moral pedestal that fundies place their scriptures. The law doesn't grant the right to live any more than an imaginary god grants the right to live -- the right is inherent.

Inherent ? That's amusing. Human rights are laws made by men. There is no "inherent" anything to them. They're there because they make sense to us, but nature doesn't really care.

Since you're now comparing human life to that of earthworms

I was not. Thanks for reading stuff that isn't there.

maybe we should go the way of state sanctioned euthanasia of any individuals considered undesirable. There would be nothing logically wrong with painlessly killing some unwanted people for the sake of societal harmony, right?

Keep burning that straw, Aku.

Then why use instances of rape as a supporting argument for abortion? You repeatedly make questionable supporting arguments and when I challenge them you accuse me if making strawman arguments.

That's because we're not having the same conversation. Rape is only one circumstance that may lead to the decision to abort. I was simply asking for your opinion, and look what I got.

I find your appeals for emotionless objectivity in a discussion of ethics both perplexing and amusing. There is no such thing as "objective" ethics.

Of course there is. What do you think "humanism" and "skepticism" are about ?

[Kahalachan]

OK, now it sounds like we are getting closer to an understanding and possibly an agreement. Let's focus on the "I find it immoral a lot of times" statement and see how this looks broken down a bit.

First hypothetical, a pregnancy goes horribly wrong and if the mother carries to term she will die. Is abortion moral or immoral in this case?

If moral, then Mother's Life > Potential Person's Life.
If immoral, then Potential Person's Life > Mother's Life.

So the morality lesson in case one is not so much about abortion per se, but the relative values of the lives of a person who is already born vs. one who isn't. Many people believe that in this case abortion is a moral choice, and a person who is born is more valuable than one who isn't.

Second hypothetical, a woman finds out she is accidentally pregnant (broken condom or some such, let's assume she was trying to avoid it). Is abortion moral or immoral in this case?

If moral, then Mother's Preferences> Human Life.
If immoral, then Human Life > Mother's Preferences.

(Please note, for argument purposes I am using the term Human Life, but I have no interest in the whole "is a fetus a person" argument. I have my opinion on that, others have other opinions. It is all just opinion and I have no problem living with the moral implications of my opinion. I am guessing that my opinion differs fairly drastically from yours. :o)

This is probably the murkiest of any hypothetical and the one most likely to have strong disagreement on both sides of the issue. Here we are weighting a potential life against something much less tangible.

I could go through a bunch more hypotheticals, but hopefully you see my point.

One of the reasons I prefer to break this type of discussion down like this is that it then can be applied to other moral decisions. To use a potentially explosive example, some people on the forum have expressed the sentiment that homosexuals should be put to death for their behavior. This runs directly into the perfect storm combination of both our hypotheticals where one must determine which is more valuable, someone's preferences or someone's life.

Well I wouldn't say the fetus is more important than the mother. I consider the whole of the fetus more important than a part of the mother. But the fetus as a whole and the mother as a whole, it's equal. In the case that the fetus' existence threatens the mother's life, we have 2 wholes. So there's nothing wrong with the mother taking the fetal life there.

I would say if a condom broke an abortion is warranted. For the same reason I would think a war can be warranted if diplomacy is used first. Both times, there were preventative measures taken place but the inevitability or unpredictability of the situation made the unfortunate choice available. So if diplomacy is used and fails, and if protection is used and fails, then I am going to be more sympathetic to the choice of ending of human life.

Naturally, this will always depend on the amount and manner of diplomacy. You can be sloppy about using protection or about diplomacy. The utmost care should be taken to prevent such a circumstance.

I agree the "person" argument is very complex so let's not go there quite yet ;)

So much of what we call moral depends on intent. Was there intent to kill? Yes. Then murder. Was there no intent to kill? Then manslaughter.

If the intent was to prevent the possibility of abortion, then I say there is more moral justification to kill. This is why I despise some religious condemnation against contraceptives becaue contraception does exactly what we want. It makes abortion much less of an issue.

I'll use another example. Lung cancer. If there was intent to prevent it by quitting smoking, it's noble. If there is no intent to prevent lung cancer and a person got it, we understand their actions resulted in the predicament.

But for either cases of lung cancer, we should have equal empathy. For either cases when a woman is faced with the decision to abort, empathy is required whether or not she used protection.

This is where the religious pro-lifers make us look bad. I don't have the mentality of "You brought it on yourself so now you suffer". I think "You are suffering now and I care, but for all other people don't let this happen and let's learn from this"

I think intention to prevent is a huge moral consideration to take.

Ideally: "Have sex only when you want to have a child and masturbate whenever you have urges" (applies to male and female)

But I remember a phrase that goes something like this: "An idealist is one who upon realizing a rose smells better than cabbages, concludes it must make a better soup"

Practically: "Always use protection and have sex with trustworthy partners" (applies to male and female)

Abortion will still be there, it will still suck, but at least people are doing their best to prevent it. And prevention is far more important than allowing the issue to surface and dealing with it after the fact.

[JoeEllison]

I STILL think we should start eating fetuses. :mad:

[AkuManiMani]

What I'm trying to understand is HOW you determine when the child is a human. When he has a full set of genes ? Why this moment, specifically ?

Because it is a clear and unambiguous dividing line. Its at that point that an individual gains their separate and unique biological existence. If one sets the cut-off point anywhere after this distinct event it becomes very arbitrary and one is left on a very slippery philosophical slope. If conception is not the point where an individual is granted the right to exists then there it no logical reason why anyone could not gradually push the point of "legally abortable" well into childhood and beyond. I'd rather not be on that road if it can be helped.

The fact of the matter is that the subject in question is ethical in nature meaning that ones position concerning the topic are fundamentally based subjective value judgments.

In which case no consensus can ever be reached.

Which is why emotional appeals [provided they are factually based] are central to such discussions.

I ask why should the personal whim of the mother take precedent over the life of their own child?

Whim. Euphemism, much ?

You're right. Whim maybe be too mild a word. Perhaps tyranny would be the more apt term.

Fine, I'll clarify: The zygote is human but, being as how it is not a fully developed human, It should have a different legal status reflecting this in much the same way that a minor has a differing legal status than an adult.

Okay, why do you give it a different legal status, and why should we ? I'm not being obtuse, I'm trying to understand why you are distinguishing zygote from child legally but not in terms of right to live.

Because the child's fundamental separate existence begins as a zygote. The child gains additional legal rights as it grows older based upon peripheral characteristics and faculties that it gains during that period. By the time it is an adult is has a more broadly expanded set of legal rights and responsibilities accordant with its fully developed state. In the embryonic state the person has none of these peripheral characteristics; all it has is the one core characteristic of being individual and alive. It is this core characteristic from which all the other peripheral traits emerge.

That's odd. Homo erectus was also human, but not of the same species. That's nitpicking, mind you, but I think "human" is not just about genes.

I think personhood is not just about genes either but the point of genetic identity is the only non-ambiguous transition point short of actual birth.

Non sequitur. I never said that the FACT that the embryo has no consciousness makes it okay. What I mean is that you are using "potential" as some sort of an argument, but it isn't. What it may become later is outweighed by what is now.

What it "is now" is simply a developmental stage of an individual's biological existance. The conscious person isn't just a potential at conception; its running down the metaphorical track toward us. What I'm arguing is that derailing it at that point is essentially the same as killing the conscious person emerging from it.

As I said, different subject. I'm trying to understand why you put the limit at conception when most of civilised society disagrees with you (and with me a few years back).

Because my views aren't based on cultural consensus.

The subject in question is purely of a psychosocial and ethical nature. The above statement is factually true and emotionally loaded; as it should be. If it somehow appeals to your own poorly developed emotions then the statement is both true and rhetorically effective.

That's what I said in my previous post. You are unable to examine this subject impartially.

One can view an ethical position impartially but one cannot hold an ethical position impartially. It is impossible to seriously argue any ethical position and still be impartial. If one is discussing a subject of a purely objective nature only impartial and objective arguments are valid. If one is arguing something of an ethical nature subjective arguments and emotional appeals are central. Both forms of discourse have a rational basis but the systems of methodology are quite different; one is objective and quantitative while the other is subjective and qualitative.

It's interesting that you used my answer but not the original question to make your case. In any event, I didn't say one was necessarily preferable to the other. In fact, that's my whole point.

My original statement was that adoption [I]is a viable and preferable option to abortion. All parties would benefit:

The mother isn't stuck raising a child that they are unwilling or unable to support; a family that truly wants a child can raise one; and most of all the kid gets to live. Win, win, win.

If the mother aborts on the other hand there is only one winner and its a pyrrhic victory at that.

"Feeling" is the the foundation of ethics. If I didn't have any "feeling" concerning the life of another individual there would be no logical reason why I shouldn't be a sociopath.

That's because you don't understand the very logical reasons for ethical behaviour.

There are a very large number of rational reasons for ethical behavior and all of them can be logically circumvented or disregarded by a person without any empathy or ethics. One can logically have a very personally pleasing and successful life at the expense of other people. There are plenty of megalomaniacs and sociopaths throughout history who "got away with it". Overall, they made the world a crappier place but they don't/didn't care as long as they "got theirs". The only thing that sets us apart from such monsters is our feeling and empathy for others.

The basis for your belief that the woman has the sacred-cow-right to kill her offspring is itself based upon the "feeling" that her freedom to do so is of ethical importance.

False.

So what is the basis of your belief in the woman's right to abort, if it is not ethical in origin?

It is your opinion that it is flawed. You don't own morality, Aku.

I may not own morality by that does not keep my position from being more ethically sound than yours.


Yes, and again you didn't read what I said. You're reading the words but you seem to be forgetting the context. I didn't use the law as an argument, but as a mere statement of fact.

In other words it was a red herring.

Inherent ? That's amusing. Human rights are laws made by men. There is no "inherent" anything to them. They're there because they make sense to us, but nature doesn't really care.

The universe maybe completely indifferent to own existence but that doesn't make murder any less wrong. The universe is unfair because its not a person and it has no mind -- human beings have no such excuse.


Since you're now comparing human life to that of earthworms...

I was not. Thanks for reading stuff that isn't there.

Your actual statement begs the differ:

Then maybe we should go the way of those extremist buddhists who can't bear the thought of killing earthworms.

You made this statement in direct response to my statement that the value of human life is inherent. If it was not meant as a comparison between the value placed on human life and earthworms then perhaps you need to polish your own rhetoric. Or maybe it is you who is burning straw.

maybe we should go the way of state sanctioned euthanasia of any individuals considered undesirable. There would be nothing logically wrong with painlessly killing some unwanted people for the sake of societal harmony, right?

Keep burning that straw, Aku.

Sadly, that straw is the stuffing that hangs out of your own position. Euthanasia is the logical extreme of your own position. If the will of one [in our case, a mother] can have legal precedent over the life of another [in this case, an unborn child] then there is no logical reason not to extend this view to any member of society.

That's because we're not having the same conversation. Rape is only one circumstance that may lead to the decision to abort. I was simply asking for your opinion, and look what I got.

Its also a circumstance that could lead a mother to later kill the child after it is born. That particular circumstance does not change my ethical position regarding abortion [or the next logical step of infanticide].


I find your appeals for emotionless objectivity in a discussion of ethics both perplexing and amusing. There is no such thing as "objective" ethics.

Of course there is. What do you think "humanism" and "skepticism" are about ?

Humanism is just as subjective as any other ethical system. Its subjectivity does not invalidate it but it it still based upon subjective value judgments.

Skepticism is not an ethical system; it is a methodology. At the end of the day a person still bases their application of this methodology upon subjective value judgments: "This paper sounds 'woo' so I will view it in a much more skeptical light."

[AkuManiMani]

I STILL think we should start eating fetuses. :mad:

I would only approve of this if doing so would give us superpowers...!


>_>

[Magenta]

Because it is a clear and unambiguous dividing line. Its at that point that an individual gains their separate and unique biological existence. If one sets the cut-off point anywhere after this distinct event it becomes very arbitrary and one is left on a very slippery philosophical slope. If conception is not the point where an individual is granted the right to exists then there it no logical reason why anyone could not gradually push the point of "legally abortable" well into childhood and beyond. I'd rather not be on that road if it can be helped.


Over the past few decades in most of Europe, North America and Australasia we've had increasingly liberal views toward abortion, with abortion law reform lagging a bit behind actual practice and social values. By your logic, we should be on the road to the practice of filicide and infanticide "well into childhood and beyond" becoming acceptable. Do you think that has happened?

[Fiona]

My original statement was that adoption is a viable and preferable option to abortion.All parties would benefit

You are not in a position to say that you know better what will benefit another person if they say different, Aku. If the woman wants an abortion she clearly does not agree with this proposition.

I would like to come back to my earlier question. As I understand it Akumanimani argues that a foetus is a person from the moment of conception. I do not think this is a reasonable position but let me accept it for a moment. From this follows the proposition that abortion is tantamount to murder, it is argued. So in that case, if you were the only person who could donate a kidney, or some other organ, to save a human life, should you be forced to do that? You will suffer some danger and some short term loss of the right to control your own body: but in the longer term you will suffer no ill effects. The other person will not die. Forced organ donation is a viable option and arguably preferable. Should this be compulsory? What about if you are the father of an infant who needs such a donation from you and you alone? Is it your position that the needs of that infant override your right to a decision?

[Magenta]

You are not in a position to say that you know better what will benefit another person if they say different, Aku. If the woman wants an abortion she clearly does not agree with this proposition.


In AkuManiMani's world, what a woman wants can be dismissed as mere whim or worse, tyranny:

the irresponsible whim of its host mother.

their personal whim.

economic or personal whim.

the personal whim of the mother

Whim maybe be too mild a word. Perhaps tyranny would be the more apt term.

[Safe-Keeper]

I would like to come back to my earlier question. As I understand it Akumanimani argues that a foetus is a person from the moment of conception. I do not think this is a reasonable position but let me accept it for a moment. From this follows the proposition that abortion is tantamount to murder, it is argued. So in that case, if you were the only person who could donate a kidney, or some other organ, to save a human life, should you be forced to do that? You will suffer some danger and some short term loss of the right to control your own body: but in the longer term you will suffer no ill effects. The other person will not die. Forced organ donation is a viable option and arguably preferable. Should this be compulsory? What about if you are the father of an infant who needs such a donation from you and you alone? Is it your position that the needs of that infant override your right to a decision?It's a bit of a slippery slope, but still a very good point.

[Belz...]

Its at that point that an individual gains their separate and unique biological existence.

Some will say that it is not "separate" until birth.

If one sets the cut-off point anywhere after this distinct event it becomes very arbitrary and one is left on a very slippery philosophical slope.

I agree.

If conception is not the point where an individual is granted the right to exists then there it no logical reason why anyone could not gradually push the point of "legally abortable" well into childhood and beyond. I'd rather not be on that road if it can be helped.

What's your stance about pregnancies that threaten the life of the mother ?

Which is why emotional appeals [provided they are factually based] are central to such discussions.

Actually, it's precisely why emotional appeals are worthless.

You're right. Whim maybe be too mild a word. Perhaps tyranny would be the more apt term.

Now you're reaching into insane territory, Aku. "Tyranny" ? Please, let's try to keep our cool, here.

I notice you're still trying to convince my reason with emotion. Good luck with that.

Because the child's fundamental separate existence begins as a zygote.

Not sure I agree. The child is not viable at that point, so an argument can easily be made to refute yours.

The child gains additional legal rights as it grows older based upon peripheral characteristics and faculties that it gains during that period.

May I ask what "peripheral characteristics" those are ?

I think personhood is not just about genes either but the point of genetic identity is the only non-ambiguous transition point short of actual birth.

Well, "a full set of genes" wasn't very good because lab-created primitive cells can have full set of genes and they'd still not be human.

But genetic identity isn't a strong argument, either, because identical twins and clones aren't distinct in that respect, and they're still distinct people.

What it "is now" is simply a developmental stage of an individual's biological existance. The conscious person isn't just a potential at conception; its running down the metaphorical track toward us.

But it isn't there, yet, Aku. You're trying to use something that isn't as an argument for what is.

What I'm arguing is that derailing it at that point is essentially the same as killing the conscious person emerging from it.

And I find that claim unconvincing.

Because my views aren't based on cultural consensus.

But the consensus is based on your views.

If one is arguing something of an ethical nature [i.e. bad/good, worse/better] subjective arguments and emotional appeals are central.

That's very odd.

The mother isn't stuck raising a child that they are unwilling or unable to support

But she has to go through nine months of pregnancy, with all the consequences.

a family that truly wants a child can raise one

Not sure that's much of a problem, as it is.

and most of all the kid gets to live.

You mean the zygote gets to be developped into a kid, which wasn't obligatory to start with.

If the mother aborts on the other hand there is only one winner and its a pyrrhic victory at that.

Incorrect. It's ALSO a win-win-win scenario. Just one you don't like.

There are a very large number of rational reasons for ethical behavior

Thank you, this means you agree that ethics can be reached objectively.

and all of them can be logically circumvented or disregarded by a person without any empathy or ethics.

Just like any other law or principle. What's your point ?

One can logically have a very personally pleasing and successful life at the expense of other people.

One can emotionally have that, too.

The basis for your belief that the woman has the sacred-cow-right to kill her offspring is itself based upon the "feeling" that her freedom to do so is of ethical importance.

False.

So what is the basis of your belief in the woman's right to abort, if it is not ethical in origin?

Where did that come from, Aku ? I didn't say it wasn't an ethical opinion. I said it wasn't about "feelings". But you just agreed to that, anyway.

I may not own morality by that does not keep my position from being more ethically sound than yours.

Fortunately, it also doesn't make it more ethically sound than mine.

In other words it was a red herring.

A red herring IS an argument, Aku. Stop playing around with words, you might get hurt.

The universe maybe completely indifferent to own existence but that doesn't make murder any less wrong.

I never claimed otherwise. I simply called you on the "inherent" comment.

You made this statement in direct response to my statement that the value of human life is inherent.

Yes, I did. Thanks for being incapable of actually reading what I say.

Sadly, that straw is the stuffing that hangs out of your own position.

Magnificent. A tu quoque. That'll sway me.

Euthanasia is the logical extreme of your own position. If the will of one [in our case, a mother] can have legal precedent over the life of another [in this case, an unborn child] then there is no logical reason not to extend this view to any member of society.

Of course there is, but it is true that euthanasia, in some cases, may be an ethical option.

[rape is] also a circumstance that could lead a mother to later kill the child after it is born.

By what idiotic leap of logic do you reach that conclusion ?

Humanism is just as subjective as any other ethical system.

No, it isn't. It's amazing how little you know about these things.

Skepticism is not an ethical system; it is a methodology.

Yes, a methodology that leads TO humanism.

[AkuManiMani]

Over the past few decades in most of Europe, North America and Australasia we've had increasingly liberal views toward abortion, with abortion law reform lagging a bit behind actual practice and social values. By your logic, we should be on the road to the practice of filicide and infanticide "well into childhood and beyond" becoming acceptable. Do you think that has happened?

Apparently, such practices have not gone into common practice yet, but I ask: what is to keep someone from extending the same arguments for abortion [particularly partial birth abortion] to support the practice of euthanizing infants. Life I said before the life of infants and unborn children are on the same continuum as our own. Even disregarding a necessary concern for their lives, would you really want to be on such a dangerous path?

In AkuManiMani's world, what a woman wants can be dismissed as mere whim or worse, tyranny:

If the choice is to sacrifice the life of another it IS tyranny. Don't gemme that "Oh, Aku is against women's freedom!". Thats a crock and you know it.

You are not in a position to say that you know better what will benefit another person if they say different, Aku. If the woman wants an abortion she clearly does not agree with this proposition.

One could make that same defense of mothers who decide to kill their own small children. In her mind at the time of the murders shes doing something beneficial in some since but that does not change the fact that her choice is detrimental to her and her children.

I would like to come back to my earlier question. As I understand it Akumanimani argues that a foetus is a person from the moment of conception. I do not think this is a reasonable position but let me accept it for a moment. From this follows the proposition that abortion is tantamount to murder, it is argued. So in that case, if you were the only person who could donate a kidney, or some other organ, to save a human life, should you be forced to do that? You will suffer some danger and some short term loss of the right to control your own body: but in the longer term you will suffer no ill effects. The other person will not die. Forced organ donation is a viable option and arguably preferable. Should this be compulsory? What about if you are the father of an infant who needs such a donation from you and you alone? Is it your position that the needs of that infant override your right to a decision?

I would not go so far as to call abortion murder but it is comparable to manslaughter, imo.

In the case of organ donation, the potential donor is in no way responsible for the life of recipient. They didn't bring that life into the world and as such have no particular moral obligation to the unfortunate.

In the case of a pregnant mother she is directly responsible for creating the life growing within her and it is implicitly dependent on her and her alone atleast until the time of its birth. IMO, the choice of the mother to abort her unborn child for any reasons other than life and death is a betrayal to the live she created. Theres something very very wrong with a scenario in which a mother that needs legal incentive to preserve the life of their own progeny. The only thing that separates such a mother from, say, the girl at the prom who gives birth to her baby in a garbage bag then goes back to partying is that the pregnant mother doesn't have to look baby in the eye and so their act is more impersonal.

[AkuManiMani]

Some will say that it is not "separate" until birth.

And some could also argue that the child is not truly separate until it ceases to be dependent. I've also noticed that you've side stepped my previous question:

What purely objective reasoning could you provide as an argument against infanticide?



What's your stance about pregnancies that threaten the life of the mother ?

I believe I've answered that question atleast twice already.


Actually, it's precisely why emotional appeals are worthless.

Value judgments are purely emotional in nature. If one makes a logical


Now you're reaching into insane territory, Aku. "Tyranny" ? Please, let's try to keep our cool, here.

I'm still calm actually. Just saying the force of the word tyranny may be more apt than whim -- If one is coming from the perspective that the unborn child is a person, ofcourse.

I notice you're still trying to convince my reason with emotion. Good luck with that.

I'm still waiting for a purely objective argument against infanticide.



Not sure I agree. The child is not viable at that point, so an argument can easily be made to refute yours.

A child cannot survive without the mother in the womb, and the child cannot survive on its own thereafter without a guardian. I fail to see how physical dependence makes the case for preserving their life any weaker.

May I ask what "peripheral characteristics" those are ?

I believe I gave some examples already. Consciousness, personality, age appropriate cognitive skills, etc.


Well, "a full set of genes" wasn't very good because lab-created primitive cells can have full set of genes and they'd still not be human.

First off, they aren't human cells to begin with. Secondly, I stated that and individuals existence begins when once the root cell implicitly containing all their inherent characteristics is created .

But genetic identity isn't a strong argument, either, because identical twins and clones aren't distinct in that respect, and they're still distinct people.

As a side note I think cyborg would disagree with that statement


But it isn't there, yet, Aku. You're trying to use something that isn't as an argument for what is.

The child's consciousness isn't there when it is asleep either but that doesn't mean killing it while its asleep isn't murder.


But the consensus is based on your views.

Erm...really?


If one is arguing something of an ethical nature [i.e. bad/good, worse/better] subjective arguments and emotional appeals are central.

That's very odd.

One can make all the objective logical arguments in the world for a particular ethical position [for instance, murder is bad even when you can get away with it] if the person you are trying to convince has no negative emotional value judgments concerning such an act they will remain unconvinced.

But she has to go through nine months of pregnancy, with all the consequences.

And if she chooses to abort the cell line that comprises her child then the child is dead. Nine months of pregnancy is a small price to pay in comparison.


You mean the zygote gets to be developped [I]into a kid, which wasn't obligatory to start with.

It isn't obligatory for you to live to old age and die of natural causes either. That argument is irrelevant.


There are a very large number of rational reasons for ethical behavior

Thank you, this means you agree that ethics can be reached objectively.

Rationality is not necessarily objective. One can have objective or subjective rational and all ethical considerations a fundamentally subjective.


Just like any other law or principle. What's your point ?

Ethics and morality are purely subjective.


Where did that come from, Aku ? I didn't say it wasn't an ethical opinion. I said it wasn't about "feelings". But you just agreed to that, anyway.

I agreed to no such thing.


Fortunately, it also doesn't make it more ethically sound than mine.

That is because neither of our positions and purely objective.



A red herring IS an argument, Aku. Stop playing around with words, you might get hurt.

Ergo, I was disagreeing with your statement that you weren't making an argument.


I never claimed otherwise. I simply called you on the "inherent" comment.

Inherent as in a property in and of the thing itself and not an external source. Your right to live is inherent in this sense.


Of course there is, but it is true that euthanasia, in some cases, may be an ethical option.

Can you come up with an objective reason why any of us should live?

Humanism is just as subjective as any other ethical system.


No, it isn't. It's amazing how little you know about these things.

It is based on the subjective value judgment concerning human life and discourse. It is, at it's core, subjective.

Skepticism is not an ethical system; it is a methodology.

Yes, a methodology that leads TO humanism.

False. It is a tool that leads to a conclusion. Humanism is one of an infinite number of conclusion that can be reached using said methodology.

[Ichneumonwasp]

A child cannot survive without the mother in the womb, and the child cannot survive on its own thereafter without a guardian. I fail to see how physical dependence makes the case for preserving their life any weaker.





I don't really want to get into all of this, but this caught my eye -- the issue isn't physical dependence precisely, but physical dependence on one and only one person. Before the age of viability the mother is the only person who can care for a child. After viability, theoretically, anyone can can care for the child. The issue with abortion concerns a situation in which, since the mother is the only person who can possibly care for the child, is it correct for society to tell her that she has no control over her body? Sure, we would like for her to choose to continue with the pregnancy, but must she? Are we not allowed to make decisions concerning our own bodies?

It is a situation in which two strong moral issues come into conflict. I don't see an easy way to resolve it, but I think mothers should be legally allowed to make this decision, regardless of what I or anyone else thinks about the morality of any particular decision she might make.

[Belz...]

And some could also argue that the child is not truly separate until it ceases to be dependent.

Such a case would be difficult to make, since, as you said more than once, adoption is available after birth.

What purely objective reasoning could you provide as an argument against infanticide?

I'm not going to argue against your slippery slope argument. It's another derail I won't cater to.

I believe I've answered that question atleast twice already.

Well, I don't remember reading that. I would've been shorter to just answer the question.

Value judgments are purely emotional in nature.

Hogwash. Look at stock values, for example ? They're based on an objective truth: the fact that people want more or less of the product. The fact that YOU want it may be subjective, but the value of the product isn't.

I'm still calm actually. Just saying the force of the word tyranny may be more apt than whim -- If one is coming from the perspective that the unborn child is a person, ofcourse.

Yes. Legally, it is not, however. I still don't see how it would be tyranny if it were.

I believe I gave some examples already. Consciousness, personality, age appropriate cognitive skills, etc.

And how do you determine if his cognitive skills are adequate, for example ? How are any of those criteria not arbitrary ?

First off, they aren't human cells to begin with.

Really ? You said that the species would be a good place to start. Lab-made cells would have the human genome and therefore would be of the homo sapiens species.

Secondly, I stated that and individuals existence begins when once the root cell implicitly containing all their inherent characteristics is created [i.e. the zygote].

Precisely, and unless you say that "Consciousness, personality, age appropriate cognitive skills, etc." are not part of the characteristics that make up a human, a zygote has none of that. I'm not grasping how you can hop from one standard to the next. Perhaps I'm not following or conflating two of your arguments.

The child's consciousness isn't there when it is asleep either but that doesn't mean killing it while its asleep isn't murder.

Hogwash, again. The child's consciousness is very much there when he is asleep. Otherwise there would be no time experienced between going to sleep and waking up. That is clearly not the case.

But the consensus is based on your views.

Erm...really?

Yeah, by definition.

One can make all the objective logical arguments in the world for a particular ethical position [for instance, murder is bad even when you can get away with it] if the person you are trying to convince has no negative emotional value judgments concerning such an act they will remain unconvinced.

That's very much possible, but the point is that you CAN make an ethical argument, decision or conclusion based on reason alone. Now, I'm not saying you can ONLY do that with reason, but that you CAN. I simply object to your generalization.

And if she chooses to abort the cell line that comprises her child then the child is dead. Nine months of pregnancy is a small price to pay in comparison.

I'm not following, but it's not your place to determine if nine months of pregnancy is a small price or not. You're not carrying the child.

It isn't obligatory for you to live to old age and die of natural causes either. That argument is irrelevant.

And so was yours. You added a "win" for someone who didn't exist yet.

Rationality is not necessarily objective. One can have objective or subjective rational and all ethical considerations a fundamentally subjective.

Yes, but let's not quibble about semantics, shall we ? Objective, rational, whatever. Non-emotive is what I meant.

Ethics and morality are purely subjective.

I specifically said that this statement is wrong, more than once.

I said it wasn't about "feelings". But you just agreed to that, anyway.

I agreed to no such thing.

Then you're not following your own posts very well. You said "There are a very large number of rational reasons for ethical behavior." Which is exactly what I've been saying. Do you now retract that statement ?

That is because neither of our positions and purely objective.

Who said anything about that ? When are people purely objective, anyway ? That's not the point, though. Science is never purely objective but the point is that it moves forward specifically because it tends to remove the subjective from the equation.

Ergo, I was disagreeing with your statement that you weren't making an argument.

:rolleyes: This is getting silly. YOU'RE the one labeling it an argument, not me. When I said it WASN'T an argument, you called it a red herring, which IS an argument.

Inherent as in a property in and of the thing itself and not an external source. Your right to live is inherent in this sense.

I have no inherent right to live. I have a fundamental legal right to live.

Can you come up with an objective reason why any of us should live?

Yes, I can. But this would be better suited for a new thread.

False. It is a tool that leads to a conclusion. Humanism is one of an infinite number of conclusion that can be reached using said methodology.

How can you say "false" and then say exactly what I said in different words ?

[Belz...]

It is a situation in which two strong moral issues come into conflict. I don't see an easy way to resolve it

That's why I'm neutral on this issue. There is simply no easy way to determine where the line should be drawn. Aku wants to tell us that if we don't put it at conception, then we're going to legalise killing teens in the process. There's simply no reason to think so. There's a way to determine when it's the parents' call, and when they no longer have a say in it.

Certainly, the mother must be taken into account, not just the child, and Aku's silly scenarios don't help such discussions.

[Fiona]

Apparently, such practices have not gone into common practice yet, but I ask: what is to keep someone from extending the same arguments for abortion [particularly partial birth abortion] to support the practice of euthanizing infants. Life I said before the life of infants and unborn children are on the same continuum as our own. Even disregarding a necessary concern for their lives, would you really want to be on such a dangerous path?

This is not sensible. In the first place some of us do not accept that a foetus is a person: nobody is arguing that an infant is not a person. That is what will stop the development you describe. You have already said that you believe that any stance on this issue is not logical but rather largely ethical and emotional. So there is no problem of the sort you raise, and I think you know it :)

If the choice is to sacrifice the life of another it IS tyranny. Don't gemme that "Oh, Aku is against women's freedom!". Thats a crock and you know it.

Sorry but it seems to me that you are against the basic freedom of all human beings to be in command of their own bodies. I cannot interpret your willingness to take control of someone else's body in any other way. It is not a crock, and you know it



One could make that same defense of mothers who decide to kill their own small children. In her mind at the time of the murders shes doing something beneficial in some since but that does not change the fact that her choice is detrimental to her and her children.

I made no defense. I attacked your arrogant presumption that you can determine what is beneficial for another, in direct opposition to what they themselves determine. The question of murder is not in play. Once again you bring in your bogey man of women killing small children but this is not an honest problem: it is mere scaremongering

I would not go so far as to call abortion murder but it is comparable to manslaughter, imo.

Ok, I understand this is your view, though it is a curious one

In the case of organ donation, the potential donor is in no way responsible for the life of recipient.

I think you are trading on two senses of the word " responsible", and you are begging the question. From my point of view the woman bears half the responsibility for the existence of the foetus: but that is not the same as saying she has a responsibility to bring it to term. I think you are really smuggling in a concept of "blame" here, though you may not intend to. But if you want to bring in the second sense of responsibility then I do not see why you say the hypothetical donor is not responsible. Why not? The donor holds that life in his hands and he can save it at no more cost to himself than the pregnant woman who has to bring a foetus to term.

They didn't bring that life into the world and as such have no particular moral obligation to the unfortunate.

Not even the father? He is responsible for his child, is he not? As ethical stances go this is not at all obvious to me. Again I think you are conflating two senses of "responsible" and I think you are really founding on "blame".To use a very over used analogy: I can be responsible for planting an acorn, in the sense that I did plant it: it does not follow that I am morally obligated to tend it so that it becomes an oak tree. But the word responsible can be used for both and this is where the problem arises, does it not?

In the case of a pregnant mother she is directly responsible for creating the life growing within her

And once again. Yes she took part in an action which led to a foetus and therefore is half of the cause of that foetus' existence. It is question begging to pretend that that shows she is morally obligated to bring it to term. They are two entirely separate issues.

and it is implicitly dependent on her and her alone atleast until the time of its birth.

The person who needs the organ is wholly dependent on the donor, and on him alone, for life, at least until the transplant is made

IMO, the choice of the mother to abort her unborn child for any reasons other than life and death is a betrayal to the live she created.

I understand that is what you believe. I profoundly disagree: and so does she. Now what?

Theres something very very wrong with a scenario in which a mother that needs legal incentive to preserve the life of their own progeny.

It is interesting that you take this stance when discussing abortion but not when discussing forced organ donation from a parent. Can you actually point to any relevant difference? I can see a relevant difference because I do not think a foetus is a person. You sadly cannot accept that particular difference. You are happy to raise the spectre of infanticide since it suits your stance: but you draw the line at using precisely the same thinking to support forced organ donation. So can you show me the relevant difference in your scheme?


The only thing that separates such a mother from, say, the girl at the prom who gives birth to her baby in a garbage bag then goes back to partying is that the pregnant mother doesn't have to look baby in the eye and so their act is more impersonal. and :

Nine months of pregnancy is a small price to pay in comparison.

Your right to live is inherent in this sense.


I think it is obvious that this is not about the right to life, so far as you are concerned, Aku, though I admit you may not be aware of that. It is much more to do with "blame" and with control of women's bodies. It is obvious that Ichneumonwasp and others are correct when they say that two strong moral values are to be considered in this issue. But we are not separate from our bodies. If there are any human rights at all then they must surely be granted to a person and that person is their body. That is the human to whom the subsequent rights are granted: if you use another's body without their consent you have denied their very humanity;rendered them less than human. This is what you think is a "small price to pay" and this is where I think you are wrong. I hope that is at least intelligible though I do not expect you to agree

[AkuManiMani]

I don't really want to get into all of this, but this caught my eye -- the issue isn't physical dependence precisely, but physical dependence on one and only one person. Before the age of viability the mother is the only person who can care for a child. After viability, theoretically, anyone can can care for the child. The issue with abortion concerns a situation in which, since the mother is the only person who can possibly care for the child, is it correct for society to tell her that she has no control over her body? Sure, we would like for her to choose to continue with the pregnancy, but must she? Are we not allowed to make decisions concerning our own bodies?

It is a situation in which two strong moral issues come into conflict. I don't see an easy way to resolve it, but I think mothers should be legally allowed to make this decision, regardless of what I or anyone else thinks about the morality of any particular decision she might make.

I understand the point you're making but the entire equation is changed if the unborn is considered an actual person as the mother is. Then the question is not so much one of society impairing the woman's wright to choose what happens to her own body but whether or not she has the right to kill the alleged unborn person merely to avoid the difficulties associated with pregnancy. I'm arguing that since the fetus is on the same developmental continuum as any other human that it is very well arguable that the fetus counts as a person.

[Ichneumonwasp]

I understand the point you're making but the entire equation is changed if the unborn is considered an actual person as the mother is. Then the question is not so much one of society impairing the woman's wright to choose what happens to her own body but whether or not she has the right to kill the alleged unborn person merely to avoid the difficulties associated with pregnancy. I'm arguing that since the fetus is on the same developmental continuum as any other human that it is very well arguable that the fetus counts as a person.

Well, actually, no. The two moral principles to which I referred are the fetus' right to life as a human and the mother's right to decide the fate of her own body. I already consider the fetus to count as a person.

These principles come into conflict in this situation in a way they do not in any other area, because a fetus is a human that is utterly and completely dependent upon the body of the mother. Before a fetus can viably live outside the mother's body there is only one possible means for it to survive. It isn't like any other human situation of care where someone else can do the job. Here there is only one person who can do it.

For the legal issue, I personally do not want the state telling anyone what to do with his or her body. I realize that this means that mothers may occasionally decide to kill their growing children (and I use this language deliberately), but I don't think the state should step into that situation because a woman does have a right to decide what to do with her body. If the fetus was able to live without her and if she killed him or her, then it would be premeditated murder.

I don't feel completely comfortable with this position, but it's the best I've been able to come up with. I have personal thoughts on the morality of it all, but they are just that -- personal.

[AkuManiMani]

And some could also argue that the child is not truly separate until it ceases to be dependent.

Such a case would be difficult to make, since, as you said more than once, adoption is available after birth.

Say the child were brought to term on the assumption that it would be adopted but, lo and behold, the candidates for adoption were not longer able to and no one else were willing to raise it? Would you argue that since the mother did not want the child she has every right to leave it to die?


I'm not going to argue against your slippery slope argument. It's another derail I won't cater to.

Fair enough. We'll continue it as a separate discussion on another thread.



Well, I don't remember reading that. I would've been shorter to just answer the question.

I said that it would be ethical to terminate the pregnancy of the mother's life were at stake.



Value judgments are purely emotional in nature.

Hogwash. Look at stock values, for example ? They're based on an objective truth: the fact that people want more or less of the product. The fact that YOU want it may be subjective, but the value of the product isn't.

I was referring to ETHICAL value judgments -- not quantitative value judgments.

A stock value is a quantitative value judgment; the quantity is of an objective numerical value. The trader's equating more with better is the subjective value judgment of the objective value. Without this subjective judgment ["owning numerically higher stocks is good and desirable"] there would no one actually trading the stocks to begin with. All objective methods are means to subjective ends.

Ethical value judgments are example of purely subjective assessments of objective reality.


I'm still calm actually. Just saying the force of the word tyranny may be more apt than whim -- If one is coming from the perspective that the unborn child is a person, ofcourse.

Yes. Legally, it is not, however.

That is irrelevant to whether it truly is or not.

I still don't see how it would be tyranny if it were.

Because it would be the will of one dictating the death of another [again, assuming that the unborn child is a person].


I believe I gave some examples already. Consciousness, personality, age appropriate cognitive skills, etc.

And how do you determine if his cognitive skills are adequate, for example ? How are any of those criteria not arbitrary ?

I was listing "peripheral" characteristics that the zygote generates during the course of its development thru its life cycles. The degree of said characteristics is irrelevant to the to statement I was making -- namely that the characteristics are gradually merging from the zygote.


Really ? You said that the species would be a good place to start. Lab-made cells would have the human genome and therefore would be of the homo sapiens species.

The question would be are those cells capable of developing thru the life cycles of a human being as a healthy zygote would be? If not then the cells in question would truly be non-viable and essentially already aborted.

Secondly, I stated that and individuals existence begins when once the root cell implicitly containing all their inherent characteristics is created [i.e. the zygote].

Precisely, and unless you say that "Consciousness, personality, age appropriate cognitive skills, etc." are not part of the characteristics that make up a human, a zygote has none of that. I'm not grasping how you can hop from one standard to the next. Perhaps I'm not following or conflating two of your arguments.

I'm saying that those characteristics that we generally associate with personhood are not merely "potential" [as in the case of a somatic cell] to the zygote/fetus but are implicit of and emerging from the zygote. It is this status that allows me to equate the zygote with being a person.

Hogwash, again. The child's consciousness is very much there when he is asleep. Otherwise there would be no time experienced between going to sleep and waking up. That is clearly not the case.

I'm equating a fetus with a sleeping child thats yet to wake up for the first time.


Yeah, by definition.

I was under the impression from the statements of other posters that my view is not the consensus /shrug

One can make all the objective logical arguments in the world for a particular ethical position [for instance, murder is bad even when you can get away with it] if the person you are trying to convince has no negative emotional value judgments concerning such an act they will remain unconvinced.

That's very much possible, but the point is that you CAN make an ethical argument, decision or conclusion based on reason alone. Now, I'm not saying you can ONLY do that with reason, but that you CAN. I simply object to your generalization.

[We really should start another thread on this. Shall I do the honors? :D ]

You're missing the point. In trying to convince someone of an ethical position simply informing the individual of objective facts and arguments are meaningless if they do not change their feelings on the subject.

Ethical positions [and other subjective value judgments] are merely the emotional assessment of perception . One can make the objective statement "Jonny killed Sally" and logically explain the details of how this came to be and what follows to the n'th degree. If the person you're making the case to does not make a subjective emotional connection to the subject and events in question you can objectively argue till you're blue in the face but you're not going to convince them personally that the killing was good or bad. An ethical argument -- fact figures and all -- is fundamentally an appeal to the emotions of another; you are trying to change the subjective perception of an individual.

I'm not following, but it's not your place to determine if nine months of pregnancy is a small price or not. You're not carrying the child.

Because I weigh the life of an individual person to have more ethical weight than the emotional state of another. Wether I were the one carrying the child or not my judgment of ethical worth would still be: [child [B]> inconvenience of pregnancy]. If I were on a jury in a case where an individual killed their children in frustration I don't have to be a parent to weight the lives of the children as being of more value that the psychological state of the parent.


Ethics and morality are purely subjective.

I specifically said that this statement is wrong, more than once.

Ethics/Morality are subjective value judgments of social phenomenon and individuals. They are essentially statements of "thus is bad" or "thus is good". Those are not objective statements.

Then you're not following your own posts very well. You said "There are a very large number of rational reasons for ethical behavior." Which is exactly what I've been saying. Do you now retract that statement ?

We already established that I distinguish between "rational" and "objective". Stop quibbling as if I were equating the two.



Who said anything about that ? When are people purely objective, anyway ? That's not the point, though. Science is never purely objective but the point is that it moves forward specifically because it tends to remove the subjective from the equation.

Science is not ethics -- you're comparing oranges to orangutans. Science is the objective study of objective phenomenon and people pursue it for subjective reasons [they like to do it and/or perceive it as beneficial]. Ethics, on the other hand, concerns codes of social conduct based upon subjective value judgments of what constitutes "good" and "bad".




I have no inherent right to live. I have a fundamental legal right to live.

You've just replace the theistic God with Law.

What if there were no law protecting you? Would your life be forfeit?



Can you come up with an objective reason why any of us should live?

Yes, I can. But this would be better suited for a new thread.

This I would like to see. Very well, we'll continue this discussion on another thread :)

How can you say "false" and then say exactly what I said in different words ?

Because you stated that the logical conclusion of skepticism [of what in particular, btw?] was Humanism. Humanism is not the logical conclusion of skepticism because skepticism has no conclusion -- it is just a stance of requiring the testing of a statement's veracity before tentatively accepting it.

[AkuManiMani]

This is not sensible. In the first place some of us do not accept that a foetus is a person: nobody is arguing that an infant is not a person. That is what will stop the development you describe. You have already said that you believe that any stance on this issue is not logical but rather largely ethical and emotional. So there is no problem of the sort you raise, and I think you know it :)

No I don't know it. There are individuals who do not share you emotional and ethical concern for infants. There have been many instances where a mother opted for a partial birth abortion procedure on a conscious child where the doctor would literally pierce its skull and suck out its brains while its still living. There are still more instances where the unwanted child is killed and/or deliberately left to die by parents.


Sorry but it seems to me that you are against the basic freedom of all human beings to be in command of their own bodies. I cannot interpret your willingness to take control of someone else's body in any other way. It is not a crock, and you know it

The fetus is not an extension of the woman's body. Even after the birth the parent(s) [especially the mother] must unitize the bodily resources to physically provide for the child. The parents are legally obligated to ensure that the child is physically provided for and I see no reason why the woman should not be legally obligated before birth.



I made no defense. I attacked your arrogant presumption that you can determine what is beneficial for another, in direct opposition to what they themselves determine. The question of murder is not in play. Once again you bring in your bogey man of women killing small children but this is not an honest problem: it is mere scaremongering

So infanticide is a fiction I made up in an effort to "scaremonger"?

I would not go so far as to call abortion murder but it is comparable to manslaughter, imo.

Ok, I understand this is your view, though it is a curious one

What can I say? I'm a curious person ;)

I think you are trading on two senses of the word " responsible", and you are begging the question. From my point of view the woman bears half the responsibility for the existence of the foetus: but that is not the same as saying she has a responsibility to bring it to term. I think you are really smuggling in a concept of "blame" here, though you may not intend to. But if you want to bring in the second sense of responsibility then I do not see why you say the hypothetical donor is not responsible. Why not? The donor holds that life in his hands and he can save it at no more cost to himself than the pregnant woman who has to bring a foetus to term.

The difference is that the potential donor in now way contributed to the condition of the potential recipient. If the donor in question was the direct cause for the recipients need for the organ then they are morally responsible for providing it.

With the exception of rape, both the mother and father are fully responsible for the initiation of the pregnancy. Pregnancy isn't a spontaneous condition -- there is a deliberate act that brings it into being.

Not even the father? He is responsible for his child, is he not?

I never argued that the father wasn't responsible for the child. Whether he is or not is irrelevant to this discussion since he wouldn't be the one getting the abortion. After the child is born its a given that unless he is physically disabled he should be supporting his child.

To use a very over used analogy: I can be responsible for planting an acorn, in the sense that I did plant it: it does not follow that I am morally obligated to tend it so that it becomes an oak tree. But the word responsible can be used for both and this is where the problem arises, does it not?

That is a poor analogy. An oak tree is not, and never will be, a person.

And once again. Yes she took part in an action which led to a foetus and therefore is half of the cause of that foetus' existence. It is question begging to pretend that that shows she is morally obligated to bring it to term. They are two entirely separate issues.

Unless she was raped no one forced her to become pregnant; the pregnancy is the result of a deliberate act on her part. She and the father are responsible for the consequences of that act regardless of whether they were foreseen or not.


The person who needs the organ is wholly dependent on the donor, and on him alone, for life, at least until the transplant is made

If the donor didn't create the need for the donation nor has any relationship to the recipient it is not comparable to parenthood.



I understand that is what you believe. I profoundly disagree: and so does she. Now what?

If she cannot provide a valid medical reason for having the procedure done she, and the practitioner who carried out the procedure, should face manslaughter charges, imo.




It is interesting that you take this stance when discussing abortion but not when discussing forced organ donation from a parent.

You never mentioned in your scenario that the donor in question was the parent.

Can you actually point to any relevant difference?

Yes I can, tho I'm a bit taken aback that you changed the story and then dispute a response to it that I never made.


I can see a relevant difference because I do not think a foetus is a person. You sadly cannot accept that particular difference. You are happy to raise the spectre of infanticide since it suits your stance: but you draw the line at using precisely the same thinking to support forced organ donation. So can you show me the relevant difference in your scheme?

Cause of condition.

I think it is obvious that this is not about the right to life, so far as you are concerned, Aku, though I admit you may not be aware of that. It is much more to do with "blame" and with control of women's bodies.

Do not try to turn this into an issue of sexism. This would be my view regardless of whether I was born a male or female. I am 100% for the right of a woman or any other individual to deiced what to do with their own bodies. A woman has the right and responsibility to decide if and when she will have children. My position is that once she IS pregnant it stops simply being an issue of her own life and body but also that of the child she is carrying; once the child is conceived she has a moral obligation to that child.

[Fiona]

What about if you are the father of an infant who needs such a donation from you and you alone? Is it your position that the needs of that infant override your right to a decision?

I never argued that the father wasn't responsible for the child. Whether he is or not is irrelevant to this discussion since he wouldn't be the one getting the abortion. After the child is born its a given that unless he is physically disabled he should be supporting his child.

Yes I can, tho I'm a bit taken aback that you changed the story and then dispute a response to it that I never made.

I did not change the thought experiment, actually

[gumboot]

I'm curious about what those who support the right of a woman to choose between termination and carrying a pregnancy to term feel about laws that require a biological father to provide financial support to a child they may not have wanted.

The focus of termination arguments seems to be on pregnancy itself and thus proposes that as only the female experiences pregnancy, only the female has any rights in the matter.

However pregnancy lasts only 9 months whereas a child will normally live for the remainder of both biological parents' lives, thus in the long run the impact on the male, if the child is born, is actually very similar to the impact on the female.

Fundamentally, the child becomes a drain on the parents' primary survival resource - which in modern western society is money. Particularly, the child will be a drain during the parents' most productive years financially.

The financial burden of a child (wanted or unwanted) can, and regularly does, destroy people's lives (including the child, in many cases).

I'm curious what people think of this aspect, as I personally feel it's fairly relevant, yet seems to be usually ignored.

[Magenta]

Apparently, such practices have not gone into common practice yet, but I ask: what is to keep someone from extending the same arguments for abortion [particularly partial birth abortion] to support the practice of euthanizing infants. Life I said before the life of infants and unborn children are on the same continuum as our own. Even disregarding a necessary concern for their lives, would you really want to be on such a dangerous path?


But we are already on this path and there is no indication that anything like this is actually occurring. Nothing could stop someone making the argument (presumably in some obscure philosophical setting), but that's a whole different thing from what would be acceptable in practice. I don't think anyone would disagree about the continuum of life; the conundrum exists for you because you insist that a zygote is more or less the same as an infant. In reality, the law, obstetric practice and society in general distinguish between a fetus that is totally dependant on a woman's body, a late term fetus that may be viable outside the woman's body, and an infant who can be cared for by people other than his/her mother.

If the choice is to sacrifice the life of another it IS tyranny. Don't gemme that "Oh, Aku is against women's freedom!". Thats a crock and you know it.


I thought it was legitimate and relevant to point out a pattern of language use in a context where the user holds extreme (IMO) views on what a woman can or can not do with her body.


I'm curious about what those who support the right of a woman to choose between termination and carrying a pregnancy to term feel about laws that require a biological father to provide financial support to a child they may not have wanted.


Might be better in a new thread?

[Fiona]

No I don't know it. There are individuals who do not share you emotional and ethical concern for infants. There have been many instances where a mother opted for a partial birth abortion procedure on a conscious child where the doctor would literally pierce its skull and suck out its brains while its still living. There are still more instances where the unwanted child is killed and/or deliberately left to die by parents.

Since I do not accept that a foetus is a child I do not think we are likely to agree. Nevertheless it is already largely agreed that late term abortion is rare and so is infanticide. I do not see much evidence that a decision for a late abortion is taken lightly even where it is available. You persist in suggesting that such decisions are taken on a "whim" and I just do not think this is true. Thus, even if I agreed with your way of balancing competing values, I do not think you have established your case. I know that you believe it is legitimate to use emotive language to sway others to your point of view but I do not think it particularly helpful


The fetus is not an extension of the woman's body.

No in your conception it is not. In your conception it is another human being. Human beings do not have the right to use another's body without consent. If you truly believe it is a human being then it has no such right.


Even after the birth the parent(s) [especially the mother]

Why "especially the mother"?

must unitize the bodily resources to physically provide for the child. The parents are legally obligated to ensure that the child is physically provided for and I see no reason why the woman should not be legally obligated before birth.

And I do not see why she should be required to hand control of her body over to you or anybody else. It is her body. End of story.


So infanticide is a fiction I made up in an effort to "scaremonger"?

Infanticide has certainly happened and continues to happen. It has nothing at all to do with this question and that is why your use of it is "scaremongering" it is irrelevant to the fact that you take it upon yourself to decide what is of benefit tp someone else in face of their disagreement


The difference is that the potential donor in now way contributed to the condition of the potential recipient. If the donor in question was the direct cause for the recipients need for the organ then they are morally responsible for providing it.

Do you then believe that if the driver of a car hits someone and that person is injured and needs a kidney, then that driver should be forced to donate one of his own or find a compatible donor? What about if the injury is caused by inadequate health and safety in the work place? Does the employer have to donate then ?

With the exception of rape, both the mother and father are fully responsible for the initiation of the pregnancy. Pregnancy isn't a spontaneous condition -- there is a deliberate act that brings it into being.

They did the deed: that sense of the word "responsible" is agreed. The other sense does not follow from it

I never argued that the father wasn't responsible for the child. Whether he is or not is irrelevant to this discussion since he wouldn't be the one getting the abortion. After the child is born its a given that unless he is physically disabled he should be supporting his child.

You misunderstood my point as shown in my last post. Does he have to donate a kidney if he is the sole compatible donor?

That is a poor analogy. An oak tree is not, and never will be, a person.

I am going to assume you are wilfully misunderstanding this point and I will let it lie

Unless she was raped no one forced her to become pregnant; the pregnancy is the result of a deliberate act on her part. She and the father are responsible for the consequences of that act regardless of whether they were foreseen or not.

And one possible consequence is abortion.


If she cannot provide a valid medical reason for having the procedure done she, and the practitioner who carried out the procedure, should face manslaughter charges, imo.

That is your opinion, indeed. For me anyone who takes control of another's body without their consent should be prosecuted. Where does that leave us?


Do not try to turn this into an issue of sexism. This would be my view regardless of whether I was born a male or female. I am 100% for the right of a woman or any other individual to deiced what to do with their own bodies. A woman has the right and responsibility to decide if and when she will have children. My position is that once she IS pregnant it stops simply being an issue of her own life and body but also that of the child she is carrying; once the child is conceived she has a moral obligation to that child.

For me it is an issue of sexism, Aku. It really does not matter if you would take the same view if you were female: many women do in fact agree with you. But that is a decision for each woman to take. Control of your own body is the most fundamental mark of full humanity, and, if you deny it only in the circumstance of pregnancy, it happens to be sex linked. Can't do much about that, really.

May I ask this. In view of your position that this is a question of the right to life does it follow that you can support late abortion by means of C-section? It flies in the face of the current trend to reduce the period during which abortion can be allowed, but it seems to me that all of your objections can be met if abortion can be carried out after the foetus has developed enough to be viable in an incubator. This seems a possible way forward, since with increasing medical and technical knowledge the period at which abortion would be a proper option would extend over time, and thus we might all be able to get some of what we believe to be important

[AkuManiMani]

But we are already on this path and there is no indication that anything like this is actually occurring. Nothing could stop someone making the argument (presumably in some obscure philosophical setting), but that's a whole different thing from what would be acceptable in practice. I don't think anyone would disagree about the continuum of life; the conundrum exists for you because you insist that a zygote is more or less the same as an infant. In reality, the law, obstetric practice and society in general distinguish between a fetus that is totally dependant on a woman's body, a late term fetus that may be viable outside the woman's body, and an infant who can be cared for by people other than his/her mother.

Infanticide and partial birth abortion aren't merely not armchair hypotheticals; they actually occur.


I thought it was legitimate and relevant to point out a pattern of language use in a context where the user holds extreme (IMO) views on what a woman can or can not do with her body.

A child, born or unborn, is not a part of the woman's body. If the woman did not want to have the child they should have taken proper precautions against such an event, or have been prepared to accept the consequences should such measures fail.

[AkuManiMani]

Since I do not accept that a foetus is a child I do not think we are likely to agree. Nevertheless it is already largely agreed that late term abortion is rare and so is infanticide.

But they use the same justifications as those used for early term abortion.


I do not see much evidence that a decision for a late abortion is taken lightly even where it is available. You persist in suggesting that such decisions are taken on a "whim" and I just do not think this is true.

If the decision is not simply made on a "whim" then that means that there are certain considerations involved. I would assume that these considerations extend beyond the mere expense of the procedure to the actual consideration of the child's life. One can formulate atleast some reasonable arguments for an early term abortion but there is nothing that distinguishes late term and partial birth abortion from infanticide. The brutal nature of the procedure alone should make it unthinkable for any sane mother.


Thus, even if I agreed with your way of balancing competing values, I do not think you have established your case. I know that you believe it is legitimate to use emotive language to sway others to your point of view but I do not think it particularly helpful

So invoking the "right to choose" like a sacred cow mantra isn't emotive language? As I have said before this is a discussion of ethical values. We're not having an objective discussion about what is and what is not; we're debating what is morally "right" and "wrong". There is no ethic without emotional conviction and no ethical discussion without emotive content.


No in your conception it is not. In your conception it is another human being. Human beings do not have the right to use another's body without consent. If you truly believe it is a human being then it has no such right.

Pardon me, but the child didn't ask to be conceived nor did it force itself on its mother. The child is a genetic and physiologically separate entity from the mother -- it is by no stretch of the imagination part of her body [One can argue and quibble over whether or not one should consider a fetus a person but it is an objective biological fact that it is not a part of the mother's body]. It is a distinct living organism which the mother brought upon herself. If the mother didn't want the child she shouldn't have made it. Having the unborn child pay the ultimate price for her irresponsibility is inherently wrong.


Why "especially the mother"?

Because shes the one stuck paying the higher psychological and biological cost of reproduction. Its an unfortunate quirk of mammalian biology.

And I do not see why she should be required to hand control of her body over to you or anybody else. It is her body. End of story.

I don't see why she should just irresponsibly create a human life and then terminate it simply because nurturing it is too much of a bother for her. It is not her life to end. End of story.


Infanticide has certainly happened and continues to happen. It has nothing at all to do with this question and that is why your use of it is "scaremongering" it is irrelevant to the fact that you take it upon yourself to decide what is of benefit tp someone else in face of their disagreement.

As I've said already the same arguments you use in the defense of abortion can and have been used in justification of infanticide. If acknowledging that disturbs or frightens you thats your own affair. Abortion and infanticide are philosophical bed fellows whether you want to recognize it or not.

Do you then believe that if the driver of a car hits someone and that person is injured and needs a kidney, then that driver should be forced to donate one of his own or find a compatible donor? What about if the injury is caused by inadequate health and safety in the work place? Does the employer have to donate then ?

Actually, thats not a bad idea. The donation would be of greater compensatory value than simple monetary compensation.

They did the deed: that sense of the word "responsible" is agreed. The other sense does not follow from it.

So the parents are responsible for the child when its outside of the womb but, by some magical logic, its disposable if its still in the womb? This makes no ethical or rational sense.


You misunderstood my point as shown in my last post. Does he have to donate a kidney if he is the sole compatible donor?

If he would be legally required to send a percentage of his life's earnings to the child in the form of child support payments I see no reason why he should not be required to send a kidney too. Now what?

I am going to assume you are wilfully misunderstanding this point and I will let it lie

I'm going to assume that you don't see the inadequacy of the example you used and let it lie.


Unless she was raped no one forced her to become pregnant; the pregnancy is the result of a deliberate act on her part. She and the father are responsible for the consequences of that act regardless of whether they were foreseen or not.

And one possible consequence is abortion.

Abortion is not a consequence; its a conscious decision to avoid the consequence of a full term pregnancy. Once shes created the life [which was not forced on her] neither she, nor anyone else, has the right to take it away.


That is your opinion, indeed. For me anyone who takes control of another's body without their consent should be prosecuted. Where does that leave us?

So if a person has a highly contagious life threatening disease it would be immoral to "take control of their body" by putting them in quarantine to protect the lives of other people? Since its the person's own body they should be allowed to have intercourse with whomever they choose or use public facilities at their own leisure, right? Its their fundamental right to do what they please with their own body! :rolleyes:

As I've said before, the unborn child is not the woman's body and there is no valid biological argument that you can make that the child is a part of her body. Ergo, she has no sovereign right over the life of that unborn child. The child is not imposing itself on the mother; the mother imposed her own will and brought it into existence thru her own reckless irresponsibility and negligence.


For me it is an issue of sexism, Aku. It really does not matter if you would take the same view if you were female: many women do in fact agree with you. But that is a decision for each woman to take. Control of your own body is the most fundamental mark of full humanity, and, if you deny it only in the circumstance of pregnancy, it happens to be sex linked. Can't do much about that, really.

She can ensure that she doesn't become pregnant to begin with. I'm not advocating that society should force a woman to have or not have children. What I'm saying is that society shouldn't allow someone to recklessly create a human life and then discard it.

May I ask this. In view of your position that this is a question of the right to life does it follow that you can support late abortion by means of C-section? It flies in the face of the current trend to reduce the period during which abortion can be allowed, but it seems to me that all of your objections can be met if abortion can be carried out after the foetus has developed enough to be viable in an incubator. This seems a possible way forward, since with increasing medical and technical knowledge the period at which abortion would be a proper option would extend over time, and thus we might all be able to get some of what we believe to be important

Erm...Correct me If I'm wrong, but are you seriously asking me if I would approve of late term abortions after I just spent the last couple pages arguing for the humanity of a zygote? Perhaps I'm just misunderstanding your question. :confused:

[Fiona]

It does not bother me that the same arguments can be adduced. As you have acknowledged, these things are not wholly rational and therefore the fact that they can be so adduced does not mean that they are. As Magenta pointed out, there is no evidence at all that we are in any danger of that development and I do not think this is in any way a concern. If it ever becomes a problem we can cross that bridge. Meantime I will not worry about it and neither should you.

As to whether it is part of the mother's body: I have allowed this for the sake of argument though I do not believe as you do. It makes no matter from my point of view, since it is not a human being. This still does not address the fact that you are prepared to take control of a woman for no other reason than you find her actions morally distasteful. If you do not want an abortion don't have one. But if you are to engage in this debate then it is surely fair to require you to acknowledge that your assertion that a couple of cells is a human being is neither demonstrable in any rational terms nor relevant to whether it is, as you say elsewhere, a "separate entity". An entity is not necessarily a human being and in this case it is not a human being.

I do not use the "right to choose" emotively. I sincerely believe that the right to control your own body is the most basic, and that it cannot be abridged lightly. Yes there are other considerations involved and women draw their conclusions having balanced those in their own ethical scheme, just as you do in yours. It is quite insulting to assert, as you do repeatedly, that this is on a whim. It is clear to me that despite your protestations you do not in fact think that women are able to make moral decisions for themselves in the way you believe you can. Forgive me if I find that laughable. Women are perfectly well able to make such decisions and those who choose to have abortions (and I) do not agree with how you weigh them. Since you consider it is subjective and emotional then there is no reason your particular conclusions should carry any force at all. I am as appalled by your lack of respect for a woman's autonomy as you are for her decision to abort a foetus. It is her decision and she has precisely the same right to reach her conclusions about the ethics of the situation as you do. You are hardly in a position to question her sanity when you apparently cannot tell the difference between a few cells and a human being. But as I said, don't have an abortion if it makes you uncomfortable.

I do admire your consistency, however. I will be very interested to see the campaign you start to ensure that forced organ donation is implemented in the circumstances we have discussed. Now this is something where you really do have a locus, because it could happen to you. It is at least as important as abortion and it probably happens quite often. So why don't you focus on those things that directly concern you and come back to abortion once you have persuaded us all to cede the integrity of our bodies in all the other cases where we are, by your lights, "responsible". This would go a long way to convincing me that you are not tainted by a failure to recognise women as fully human and that your ethical stance is genuine.

Yes. I am asking you if you can live with the idea of late term abortions. I already discussed with Wolfman the proposition that the choice to abort is the choice to terminate the pregnancy: not the foetus. So if the foetus can be surgically removed and brought to term somewhere else then that would satisfy both sides. Do you have any objection to that ?

[Ichneumonwasp]

A child, born or unborn, is not a part of the woman's body.

I know this wasn't directed to me, so I hope you guys will not mind if I answer, but yes it actually is in one manner of looking at it.

I know this sounds like inflammatory language, but biologically an unborn child can be viewed either as a part of the woman's body or a parasite. I don't see another readily available category.

But I do agree with your other sentiment. If a woman or man does not want a baby either or both should takes steps to prevent conception.

[AkuManiMani]

It does not bother me that the same arguments can be adduced. As you have acknowledged, these things are not wholly rational and therefore the fact that they can be so adduced does not mean that they are. As Magenta pointed out, there is no evidence at all that we are in any danger of that development and I do not think this is in any way a concern. If it ever becomes a problem we can cross that bridge. Meantime I will not worry about it and neither should you.

Unfortunately, unlike you, I consider the cases equivalent in some sense so, I my case there is a cause to fret a bit.

As to whether it is part of the mother's body: I have allowed this for the sake of argument though I do not believe as you do. It makes no matter from my point of view, since it is not a human being. This still does not address the fact that you are prepared to take control of a woman for no other reason than you find her actions morally distasteful. If you do not want an abortion don't have one. But if you are to engage in this debate then it is surely fair to require you to acknowledge that your assertion that a couple of cells is a human being is neither demonstrable in any rational terms nor relevant to whether it is, as you say elsewhere, a "separate entity". An entity is not necessarily a human being and in this case it is not a human being.

Morality has no meaning outside of the context of atleast two individuals. I do not find the matter of what another person does with their own body is of moral concern-- whether I necessarily approve of the actions or not is irrelevant since it is that persons own personal choice. I do find that actions an individual takes which affect the individual of another have enough moral force to justify legal measures. I do not simply find robbery or murder personally distasteful; I find it morally wrong and therefore worthy of lawful restriction and punishment of some sort.

Now as far as the issue of whether or not the fetal cell line can or should be considered human is quite another issue. In my view, a person comes into existence the moment they are conceived and the fetus is just one developmental stage in the person's life. While the person has not become conscious by this point in their life I view them as "asleep" in the sense that their sentience is inherently there but has not yet been activated. Granted, this position may strike you as needlessly nuanced and convoluted but the point of conception is the first non-ambiguous dividing line in the developmental cycle of an individual short of actual birth. Considering the time of conception as the beginning of a person's life bypasses philosophical slippery slope of determining when sentience actually begins.

I do not use the "right to choose" emotively. I sincerely believe that the right to control your own body is the most basic, and that it cannot be abridged lightly.

I was not questioning the sincerity of your comment or position. I was merely pointing out that the position is indeed emotional in nature due to the strong conviction behind it. When I say that the argument is an emotional appeal I do not necessarily mean that it is some kind of Machiavellian demagoguery meant to callously manipulate. When I say that a moral/ethical argument is an emotional appeal I compare it along the same lines as King's "I have a Dream" speech. I simply consider your particular position to be mistaken.

Yes there are other considerations involved and women draw their conclusions having balanced those in their own ethical scheme, just as you do in yours. It is quite insulting to assert, as you do repeatedly, that this is on a whim. It is clear to me that despite your protestations you do not in fact think that women are able to make moral decisions for themselves in the way you believe you can. Forgive me if I find that laughable. Women are perfectly well able to make such decisions and those who choose to have abortions (and I) do not agree with how you weigh them. Since you consider it is subjective and emotional then there is no reason your particular conclusions should carry any force at all. I am as appalled by your lack of respect for a woman's autonomy as you are for her decision to abort a foetus. It is her decision and she has precisely the same right to reach her conclusions about the ethics of the situation as you do. You are hardly in a position to question her sanity when you apparently cannot tell the difference between a few cells and a human being. But as I said, don't have an abortion if it makes you uncomfortable.

First of all, its not merely a matter of psychological condescension. If it were just an issue of what clothing the woman preferred to wear, where she wanted to live, her choice of career, etc. my opinion on the matter would mean squat because their decisions would be of a personal nature and not a moral one. If one comes from the assumption that the unborn child is indeed a person the question of whether to abort it or not is not simply a matter of personal choice but of social justice. Under such an assumption, the choice to abort the child is equivalent to murder or manslaughter and one would make moral judgments on the matter with this equivalence in mind. Whether or not the woman making the decision is of sound mind would be irrelevant to the point that she would be initiating the death of another human being.

As for the question of a clump of "a few cells" vs. a human being the difference between the particular clump of cells in question and an adult human is a matter of degree rather than kind. I consider the person to be a person on every point on their developmental cycle as an organism; any distinction on this continuum would be ambiguous and purely arbitrary.


I do admire your consistency, however. I will be very interested to see the campaign you start to ensure that forced organ donation is implemented in the circumstances we have discussed. Now this is something where you really do have a locus, because it could happen to you. It is at least as important as abortion and it probably happens quite often. So why don't you focus on those things that directly concern you and come back to abortion once you have persuaded us all to cede the integrity of our bodies in all the other cases where we are, by your lights, "responsible". This would go a long way to convincing me that you are not tainted by a failure to recognise women as fully human and that your ethical stance is genuine.

If I were in some way directly responsible for someone else's organ damage I would accept the responsibility. If I owed them a kidney I would give that kidney; simple as that :)

Yes. I am asking you if you can live with the idea of late term abortions. I already discussed with Wolfman the proposition that the choice to abort is the choice to terminate the pregnancy: not the foetus. So if the foetus can be surgically removed and brought to term somewhere else then that would satisfy both sides. Do you have any objection to that ?

Okay, now I understand what you meant. Well the solution you proposed is essentially and early adoption. Though I would have to wonder why a woman would be willing to go thru such a dramatic procedure but be unwilling to simply go thru with the pregnancy. But hey, if it avoids the issue of terminating the child I would be for it :)

[Belz...]

Say the child were brought to term on the assumption that it would be adopted but, lo and behold, the candidates for adoption were not longer able to and no one else were willing to raise it? Would you argue that since the mother did not want the child she has every right to leave it to die?

No.

I said that it would be ethical to terminate the pregnancy of the mother's life were at stake.

Thank you. Now, can you tell me why it would be ethical, in your opinion ?

I was referring to ETHICAL value judgments -- not quantitative value judgments.

Is there a difference ? I mean, really.

Ethical value judgments are example of purely subjective assessments of objective reality.

Then "ethics" is a useless concept in this discussion, because it has no use except to single individuals.

That is irrelevant to whether it truly is or not.

Of course it is. You said it would be tyranny if the foetus was considered a person. It isn't, so it's not tyranny.

Because it would be the will of one dictating the death of another [again, assuming that the unborn child is a person].

Do you think the US states that practice the death sentence are tyrannical ?

I was listing "peripheral" characteristics that the zygote generates during the course of its development thru its life cycles. The degree of said characteristics is irrelevant to the to statement I was making -- namely that the characteristics are gradually merging from the zygote.

But those are characteristics that make up a "human", and "human" is what you don't want aborted. If the foetus does NOT have those characteristics, then why do you consider it "human" ?

The question would be are those cells capable of developing thru the life cycles of a human being as a healthy zygote would be?

Aaahh! So it's not about genes, after all ? It's not about characteristics ? Is it really about "potential", now ? That's a very slippery argument, Aku, because sperm and unfertilised eggs also have this potential.

If not then the cells in question would truly be non-viable and essentially already aborted.

I thought viability was an argument you didn't consider ?

I'm equating a fetus with a sleeping child thats yet to wake up for the first time.

A weird argument, at that. How would you know if the child was conscious or not prior to this event ?

I was under the impression from the statements of other posters that my view is not the consensus /shrug

No, I meant that the consensus is based on ALL views, including yours.

You're missing the point. In trying to convince someone of an ethical position simply informing the individual of objective facts and arguments are meaningless if they do not change their feelings on the subject.

And _I_ am saying that those feelings are irrelevant.

No matter, I'm sure you agree that ethics CAN (not necessarily, but CAN) be agreed upon based on objective reasoning. So, as far as I'm concerned, this closes this particular argument.

If the person you're making the case to does not make a subjective emotional connection to the subject and events in question you can objectively argue till you're blue in the face but you're not going to convince them personally that the killing was good or bad.

I disagree. "Good" as in "beneficial" can be agreed upon without the use of emotions.

Because I weigh the life of an individual person to have more ethical weight than the emotional state of another.

First off, we're still not in agreement with what constitutes a person. Second, suffering, fear and anguish are very important when making legislation, for good reason. Many people take their own lives to escape those things, and it could be argued that death is often preferable to certain emotional states. I don't think you can weigh one against the other so easily.

Science is not ethics -- you're comparing oranges to orangutans.

I was making a comparison: two things that CAN work objectively OR subjectively. Sheesh, I really wish you'd read what I say and not add meaning to it. When science was based on subjective reasoning it didn't go anywhere. Same thing with ethics, in my opinion.

Ethics, on the other hand, concerns codes of social conduct based upon subjective value judgments of what constitutes "good" and "bad".

That is a circular definition.

You've just replace the theistic God with Law.

No, I'm not. You simply, again, misunderstood what I meant. I had a legal right to live, but it is in no way "inherent", except legally. Otherwise a whole lot of animals are commiting crimes as we speak.

What if there were no law protecting you? Would your life be forfeit?

Quite possibly. I know of a few people who might've killed me during my high school years if not for the fear of retribution.

Because you stated that the logical conclusion of skepticism [of what in particular, btw?] was Humanism.

I didn't imply that humanism was the ONLY logical conclusion, Aku. A simple misunderstanding. Again.

[Belz...]

That is a poor analogy. An oak tree is not, and never will be, a person.

Analogies aren't meant to be perfect, Aku. When they're perfect, they cease to be analogies.

Unless she was raped no one forced her to become pregnant; the pregnancy is the result of a deliberate act on her part.

You DO know that contraception doesn't work 100% of the time, right ?

You DO know that financial circumstances can also shape the decision to abort ?

If the donor didn't create the need for the donation nor has any relationship to the recipient it is not comparable to parenthood.

That's an interesting argument. Why are they obligated to carry the child to term because they "created it" ?

Do not try to turn this into an issue of sexism. This would be my view regardless of whether I was born a male or female.

That is very debatable.

[Belz...]

Infanticide and partial birth abortion aren't merely not armchair hypotheticals; they actually occur.

Nice goalpost-moving. You were talking about legislation, not illegal activities.

A child, born or unborn, is not a part of the woman's body.

The foetus certainly doesn't live or walk on its own, does it ? Do you consider symbiotes to be part of one another ?

The brutal nature of the procedure alone should make it unthinkable for any sane mother.

So they are insane, now ?

[One can argue and quibble over whether or not one should consider a fetus a person but it is an objective biological fact that it is not a part of the mother's body].

How can you claim it is a fact if it is contested ?

The donation would be of greater compensatory value than simple monetary compensation.

Compulsory mutilation ? And YOU are talking about the brutality of abortion ?

I'm not advocating that society should force a woman to have or not have children.

Of course you are.

[articulett]

Most late term abortions are due to the woman finding out the baby has a severe abnormality-- trisomy 13, anencephaly... it's more traumatic to give birth to such babies and watch them die slows as they usually do... or when they survive the quality of life is poor... then to abort them. Giving birth costs everyone for the care and services these kids will need (not to mention surgery) until they die. I really think that those who are opposed to abortion should make sure they don't have one... and adopt the unwanted and dying kids of those they talk into giving birth... or at least pay for their medical care, feeding tubes, etc. This isn't a simple issue like euthanasia, and it is a decision that should only be made by people put into such a position.

It's wrong to legislate morality... Fetuses do not have the capacity to care or "want" life... it is not in the best interest of society to force women to have unwanted children or children that they cannot care for... especially when those children will have severe medical problems. Society already must pay for the care of these children for the women who choose to give birth or who tragically give birth to a child who needs heart surgery or advanced care. Who do you think decides what surgery is necessary and what life is worth dumping millions of dollars into at that point? How much are you willing to pay to support such a child? For how long? How many of these kids? Suppose the fetus is diagnosed with Battens disease? It'll be normal until toddler hood and then go blind and then degenerate both mentally and physically until they die as a teen. Don't you think no being born is better for everyone involved?

I like the fact that the FFRF solicits funds for women who are in this sort of tragic situation who want an abortion but can't afford one. I've been a genetic counselor when a family spent much on fertility only to find out that the child they finally conseived had spina bifida... they wanted to abort rather than bring such a child in the world. They were devastated at the news and more devastated because the father was a mailman, and federal law prohibited paying for such abortions. They spent a lot of money to try and have a healthy child. I don't know what eventually happened to them... if they ever had their child.

But I was angry that the "moral police" always jump in to compound these private and difficult decisions. If people are opposed to abortion, then their time would be well spent making sure that people don't need them and caring for unwanted and unadoptable children that swell our foster homes and social service programs as it is. The Moral Police sure don't care about these unwanted kids once they are alive--They don't want social programs to go them, you don't want to educate them, you don't want to care for their needs or foster care or medical services. So who should? Who should care for a crack addicts children so they don't grow up to further burden society with their needs and their children? The more unwanted children are born the more they take from those who are already here... we cannot increase the population endlessly.

It seems all to easy to have "morals" for other people. No thanks, I want smart people protecting my rights and the rights of others... I can handle my own morality just fine, and I find myself far more moral than the "moral police" who judge me and others.

The morally opposed ought to put their money where their morals are.

[Fiona]

Okay, now I understand what you meant. Well the solution you proposed is essentially and early adoption. Though I would have to wonder why a woman would be willing to go thru such a dramatic procedure but be unwilling to simply go thru with the pregnancy. But hey, if it avoids the issue of terminating the child I would be for it

Good. Now at present we have limits on the time at which an abortion can be performed, and these limits are being reduced as technology advances. However if we can adopt this approach the opposite will be true: as a foetus can be said to be viable at an earlier and earlier stage of development, so abortion will be available earlier and earlier until we reach a stage when it is acceptable throughout a pregnancy.This is not really and early adoption, though: we would need to develop those foetuses "in a jar on the sideboard" if your assumptions are to be accommodated, I think.

Of course I do not know whether we can make the kinds of advance which will allow us to extract the foetus without killing it at every stage, but in principle I do not see why not. I assume that you will be willing to pay for the support of such foetuses? As Articulett says, this would mark a significant change from society's attitude to unwanted children but perhaps you have grounds for believing this change would come about?

[articulett]

Yes... and premature infants cost society a lot of money... not just in the initial medical expenses... but these children often need care all through their life... as well as very expensive medical care to ensure they live as "healthily" and long as possible.

Who should pay for this? Who will make sure these kids get the best life possible? Who will care for the children of these children? Somehow, I don't imagine it will be the people who oppose abortion. Once you're born, you're on your own--the "moral police" have done their job.

BTW, Fiona-- your writing is stellar.

And I think organ donation at death should be on an opt out basis... not opt in as it is my country now. Those who oppose abortion are not the ones that are most likely to fill out their organ donation card. Their morals make them feel like they are good people.... without having to do anything that is actually good or serves a concrete benefit.

Antiabortion spokespeople cause real suffering and expenses with their viewpoint while doing little to relieve the problems their "moral outrage" causes. To me, "pro-life" usually means the opposite of what it says. It often appears to denote a person who imagines themselves a moral expert, while exhibiting the most infantile morality. They have their head focused on ideals and are blinded to the real and concrete.

[Magenta]

Infanticide and partial birth abortion aren't merely not armchair hypotheticals; they actually occur.


Yes, they occur. I was addressing your argument that if abortion is allowed in any but exceptional circumstances, next we’ll be advocating infanticide. (I believe "well into childhood and beyond" was the term you used.) Even with a more liberal approach to abortion, infanticide is a still crime, and late term abortions are still contentious, relatively infrequent and subject to more restrictions than first trimester abortions.

A child, born or unborn, is not a part of the woman's body.


Could you please explain why you think a fetus is not part of a woman's body? Yes, the fetus has genetic material from the father and the placenta affords a degree of separation from the mother's body, but I don't see how you go from that to saying it is not part of her body. It's not as though it is a free-floating entity that could thrive just as easily in, say, an incubator.

Also, I see that you would allow abortion in circumstances where the woman's life would be at risk if she continued with the pregnancy. How can the fetus have this profound impact on her survival if it is not part of her body?


I know this sounds like inflammatory language, but biologically an unborn child can be viewed either as a part of the woman's body or a parasite. I don't see another readily available category.


Symbiosis is normally between different species though so I don't think "parasite" is an accurate description, though I suppose it might be used as a metaphor.