answers to the question of abortion

[neutrino_cannon]

In a stunning revelation today, I have discovered I don't really know the answer to everything.

I was asked my opinion on abortion, which really meant whether I was on thier side or not, and I realized I did not know the answer at all.

It would be madness to dispute a fetus, or even a sperm and egg just fused, is/are alive, and most certainly human in origin, if not wholely human. Does that even enter the equation though? Things alive, an most certainly human in origin, such as apendixes are rutinely removed and discarded without any (or at least much) fuss.

I desire is the correct answer here, and none of that "there is no right answer", there's always a correct answer, and I ought to posses it, here, now. ;)

[athon]

I was having a rather heated discussion the other day, where I was accused of never allowing emotion to enter a decision. Now I pride myself on trying to evaluate decisions by looking at things rationally, and make an effort to not consider how I feel (since emotions change from day to day, but facts do not). But this person was not entirely right.

I once had a rather removed view of abortion, in that I was pro-choice without really committing a reason why. Not being a female, I felt I would never have to personally make a decision about it. A neat little side step. I don't believe in a soul, and don't feel that a foetus is capable of true self-awareness (any more than any animal, for instance) until well after birth. Therefore, I felt abortion was fine during the first tri-mester, and for no real reason that I could argue I didn't think it was fine any later.

When I was 21, my ex-girlfriend came to me saying she was pregnant and wanted an abortion. The maths said it wasn't mine, but here was somebody I had loved dearly in a desperate situation. I helped her out financially and went to the clinic with her. All the while I reasoned my way through it, but afterwards I suffered some pretty bad nightmares. She was rather cold about the whole ordeal, understandably, but it affected me.

I'm still pro-choice, but the issue is a hard one, not because of anything intellectual, but because of something much more basic. It's like a deeply social embedded rule that you don't kill babies. I can't argue it because there is no real rational reason. But ever since that day, I felt awful.

Would I advocate an abortion? It would have to be a pretty dire situation before I would consider it.

Athon

[neutrino_cannon]

Why would self-awareness get into the equation? Do we know enough to even measure self-awareness?

That said, I find it unlikely that feotuses operate neurologically on a level very comperable with that of an adult.

Is there any reason that abortion is anything but killing babies?

[c4ts]

If something isn't even aware that it is alive, killing it is like crushing a rock or chopping down a tree. After all, if something isn't aware that it lives, life and death are no different to it.

[neutrino_cannon]

Originally posted by c4ts
If something isn't even aware that it is alive, killing it is like crushing a rock or chopping down a tree. After all, if something isn't aware that it lives, life and death are no different to it.

Except that it was potentially human, and fully aware like one of us. In killing it, that awareness, forwhatever it's worth, has been denied in a most cruel way.

[c4ts]

Where's your evidence that fetuses are aware if they don't even have working brains yet? What stage of development are you talking about here?

[Peter Soderqvist]

Where is the objective borderline between right, and wrong here?
Every individual sperm or egg is cellular life, and usage of contraception is thus against life! Celibate is the optimal pro-life-stance, frankly, why not start a WW Mission in action to save all sperms and eggs?

[neutrino_cannon]

Eeep. See, now I'm in way over my head.

Surely something cannot be self-aware (for whatever the heck that is worth) if it's brain is non-existant or still developing. That said I know about nothing regrading fetal development.

And I doubt anyhting can be done for the poor gamates, since eggs get washed out during menstration and sperm re-absorbed (killed, in this case) in massive numbers anyway.

Does it ulimately matter what level of conscience, or whatever, the organism you killed had, if you just by doing so denied it the potential to be your equal?

[Peter Soderqvist]

Is it logically consistent to blame abortion, meanwhile take contraceptive action against sperms natural tendency to fertilize eggs? Isn't celibate (except procreation) the optimal Pro-Life Stance?

[Peter Soderqvist]

This way of reasoning is consistent; a woman can be a landlord of houses, and thus her legal rights is to evict tenants who has violated the tenancy agreement, and she can call the police to throw them out if they don't leave the house! Analogically; a woman is the landlord of the womb and her rent rules can be that a sperm's tenancy agreement is invalid, or violated if the sperm has fused with one of her egg tenants, and they both can be evicted by a doctor!

[bjornart]

There is no correct, rational decision you can only list the pros and cons, put them up against each other, and in the end you have to make a (inherently irrational) value judgement to decide how much weight to attribute to the pros and cons.

The fertilized egg has potential to turn into a human.
Banning abortion means forcing women to bear children. (Even if they practice abstinence there's still a chance they could be raped.)

Whether or not the potential human, or the well being of the woman should weigh heavier is a value judgement. And personally I'm happy with my rationalisation that eliminating an, as yet non-thinking, collection of cells is perfectly ok. This means I'm pro-choice, pro stem cell research, pro in vitro fertilization, etc. etc.
But even though I know it's a value judgement I get pissed if someone compares it to exposing crippled children in and before the viking age.

[plindboe]

Originally posted by neutrino_cannon
Does it ulimately matter what level of conscience, or whatever, the organism you killed had, if you just by doing so denied it the potential to be your equal?

Using that kind of reasoning, one could also argue that it's immoral to decide not to have children at all. By such a decision several potential human beings will not come to exist and you have denied them of that "right". The sperm and eggs, which is also potential human life, will die instead of fulfilling their purpose. So making babies constantly, throughout your life, would be the only moral thing to do.

In my opinion it's more sensible to look at the present and judge by that.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Peter Soderqvist
Where is the objective borderline between right, and wrong here? I don't think it is possible to have an objective borderline between subjective concepts like "right" and "wrong". What is right to one person may be wrong to another, therefore any transitional marker would also be different from one person to the next.

There is no "one answer" to this question because it is based on human morality, discussed here (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=32359).

[PotatoStew]

Originally posted by c4ts
If something isn't even aware that it is alive, killing it is like crushing a rock or chopping down a tree. After all, if something isn't aware that it lives, life and death are no different to it.

Hm. When a person is unconscious, he or she isn't aware that they are alive. So if you fall and hit your head and are knocked unconscious, is it ok for someone to come along and kill you?

[phildonnia]

Originally posted by Peter Soderqvist
This way of reasoning is consistent; a woman can be a landlord of houses, and thus her legal rights is to evict tenants who has violated the tenancy agreement, and she can call the police to throw them out if they don't leave the house! Analogically; a woman is the landlord of the womb and her rent rules can be that a sperm's tenancy agreement is invalid, or violated if the sperm has fused with one of her egg tenants, and they both can be evicted by a doctor!

The analogy is imperfect in precisely the area under debate. Suppose that the only way for the police to evict tenants is to shoot them in the head and throw them in the garbage. Would you still say that a person has a legal right to evict tenants?

Oh, and fetuses aren't always bitching about the plumbing.

[hammegk]

I'm all for abortion on demand, but also think it should include forced sterilization of mom, and dad too if he can be found.

The point is it's a choice that for the fetus is no means zero-sum, so why should mom (or society) pretend otherwise. Actions have consequences.

Yeah, yeah, somebody blabber about rape, & a couple other medical issues that iirc for most abortions on demand are not an issue.


You know, choose Life -- your mama did.

[Darat]

Originally posted by PotatoStew


Hm. When a person is unconscious, he or she isn't aware that they are alive. So if you fall and hit your head and are knocked unconscious, is it ok for someone to come along and kill you?

Not too sure if this is a fair comparison to point of a foetus/baby being aware or not.

To be rendered unconscious means that I was conscious at one point, whereas the argument about a foetus being conscious is the fact that it doesn’t have a conscious state to be rendered unconscious.

Is the problem here that the foetus has the "potential" to become a baby and therefore has the potential to develop consciousness?

(Haven't seen you around for a while PS - hope you'll be a regular contributor again.)

[Skeptical Greg]

I believe the foundation of the anti-abortion stand is the assumption of the sacredness of human life. It is probable that many pro-abortion advocates hold this belief also, but then rationalize about when life begins.
It obviously begins when the zygote is formed, and from then on, it is a degree of viability.

I also find it ironic that the anti- crowd is often associated with a conservative agenda that has no problem with capital punishment, dropping bombs and other forms of killing, once the human life in question has escaped the womb, while the pro- group tends to oppose these things.


My point would be, that it is not matter of whether abortion is right or wrong, or when life begins. It is a matter of whether human life is really ' special ' or not, and at which point it is O.K. to willfully end it, if it is ever O.K. at all..

[PotatoStew]

Originally posted by Darat


Not too sure if this is a fair comparison to point of a foetus/baby being aware or not.

To be rendered unconscious means that I was conscious at one point, whereas the argument about a foetus being conscious is the fact that it doesn’t have a conscious state to be rendered unconscious.

Is the problem here that the foetus has the "potential" to become a baby and therefore has the potential to develop consciousness?


Perhaps. So you seem to be saying that a past state of affairs is more critical than the current state of affairs. What about a likely future state of affairs? Shouldn't that be given more weight than the past?

In c4ts original post, when taken at face value he seemed to place all the weight on the current state: "no awareness = ok to kill" (I'm sure that's not quite what he intended, but that's what his post seemed to imply). You've modified this, saying that a past state overrides the current state: "no awareness = ok to kill, unless there was awareness in the past."

So where does the future state fit into that heirarchy?


(Haven't seen you around for a while PS - hope you'll be a regular contributor again.)

:) I'm afraid if I do become a regular contributor again, I will cease to be a regular contributor to the real world, if you know what I mean. Maybe I'll try to be irregular though. Uh, well... you know what I mean.

[shecky]

Originally posted by Peter Soderqvist
This way of reasoning is consistent; a woman can be a landlord of houses, and thus her legal rights is to evict tenants who has violated the tenancy agreement, and she can call the police to throw them out if they don't leave the house! Analogically; a woman is the landlord of the womb and her rent rules can be that a sperm's tenancy agreement is invalid, or violated if the sperm has fused with one of her egg tenants, and they both can be evicted by a doctor!

Among other things, I tend to go along with this reasoning. Any person should not be required to be a physical host to another entity. Be it a freshly fertilized egg or a full grown adult. Compuslory pregnancy is the same as compulsory kidney donation.

[MoeFaux]

I'm hardcore pro-choice.

But, if you want to be really right, you can say that it should mirror death, and we consider a person to be dead when brain activity starts. Therefore, you can say that a fetus is really "alive" once brain activity starts, with brain waves...and that's not until several weeks in.

[roger]

I'm not legally required to give blood at the blood drive, which can save a life.

I'm not legally required to give a kidney to someone I know, which (in a much more concrete example than above) will save a life.

Why should I be required to host a zygote inside my body (rhetorical, as I'm male) for 9 months?

Possible answer: because it was an act I chose to do that created that zygote.

I don't personally agree with that reason, but I can certainly understand why someone would take that position.

[tedly]

Do you have dangly bits? Then this is a moral choice that you will never have to make at the most brutal level. Shut up and get on with it.

Do you look very like an orchid? Then you may face this choice ( and by the way, as one of my activist pro-choice friends found out to her suprise- choice may mean keeping the baby and raising a wonderful young man) and have to come to your own conclusion. I am not sure what you will choose, but I have every confidence you will make your choice thoughtfully and morally, and I would hope that we will support you - and the child if child there be- so you can be healthy and guilt free.

Why do I think you will choose well? Because in one year when in Canada a woman and her physicians and advisors would go to jail for procuring an abortion, there were an estimated 80,000 abortions. The next year it was legal, and there were 75,000 abortions. It is obvious to me that women are not making this choice lightly. Since I can't find the source for these magic numbers it will not be as obvious to you, but I have my faith, and the rest of you can go... hang.

And as for the hard questions
1) Read 'Causing death and Saving Lives' by Jonathon Glover for the hardest moral analysis I have ever tried to read. After 4 starts I've got more than half way through the book.

2) If we can detect brain activity the fetus will be alive when it says

-'Why me',
-'O s**t', or
-'It's not my fault'
all of which have interchangeable meaning and weight
-

[scribble]

I'm pro-abortion. Not pro-choice, pro-abortion. I think if abortion were mandatory in all cases, we'd find ourselves with a lot less social issues to deal with. A lot less.

[Bentspoon]

Is bringing an unwanted child into this world.

"Isn't celibate (except procreation) the optimal Pro-Life Stance?"

This is a dream. Celibacy is not going to be successful. One has to be pragmatic about these things. Though you may be strong enough to practice celibacy (I would suggest another group of women in your life :-) ) many more are not. Practicing celibacy as an answer to unwanted pregnancy isn't going to work and 10.000 years if enthusiastic participation and current overpopulation prove that.

This is about as viable as mass temporary sterilization. Sure it would work but who is going to buy into it.

The real moral dilemma here is bringing an unwanted child into this world. That to me is above all other moral considerations. To me bringing an unwanted child condemns a human being to a lifetime of suffering. Bringing in a child you cannot support or cannot raise is morally repugnant.

Better to embrace abortion than that. I also opt for abortion when the life of the mother is threatened by the pregnancy - even partial birth. The life of an existing human being must be weighed against a nonexistant soon to be human being. There is no question in my mind that the fetus should be aborted.

Those that advocate the banning of abortion have nothing to say when the dilemma of unwanted children is brought up.

I try like hell to ramain consistent in thought. I have to wonder about those that are anti-abortion but not in the case of rape or incest. I have never heard a reasonable explanation for this dichotomy of thought. Aborting is a moral issue because it is the taking of a human life - but that is OK in the case of rape or incest.

Those that take this stance could be accused of inconsistent thought.

Again, I emphasize that the real morally repugnant issue here is the birthing if an unwanted child. If the mother doesn't want it, then it is cruel to two human beings to let it to happen.

Unwanted child - abortion

Bentspoon

[Finella]

The abortion question exists at several different levels.

First you have the level of the zygote. Its state of being in the present, its potential for the future.

The zygote resides in Mom, who also has a state of being in the present and the future.

And the Mom resides in society, which also has a state of being and a future.

The problem is that one can come to an obvious answer in one realm that becomes totally irrelevant in the other realms. So we need to place value on one realm over the others. Does the level of the zygote have primary value, or the value of Mom, or the value of society?

I have often looked at this from the Mom level, but increasingly I'm seeing it from a societal level. Too many unwanted, abused and neglected children are born every day. I cannot see how placing ultimate value on the unborn and protecting it at all costs helps society deal with the children who already exist and are not adequately cared for. That's where my own answer lies -- until every child who is already born can be adequately nurtured and loved, we cannot eliminate abortions.

Having said that, we still need to recognize the impact of abortion on those who receive them, and the need to prevent them in the first place. Abortion is still very unfortunate and, let's face it, can be traumatizing to the pregnant woman. Besides the circumstances that got her pregnant and then unable to care for the child to the extent that she felt it best to abort the pregnancy, she has worries about what "could have been." People need to be educated to prevent unplanned and unwanted pregnancy, especially when they're sexually active and not in a life situation where they could support a kid. But that's really easier said than done.

$0.02

---,---'--{@

[Dancing David]

I am a wierd product of the seventies, I personal believe that abortion is wrong, but I do not feel that i have the right to tell another what to do.

Apologia, the following rant is not addressed to any posters on this board.

[Rant]
What is the BFD about human babies, I mean I know they are cute and I love them dearly. But for crying out loud ,what about other consious animals that we raise and the slaughter for food? We raise them in inhumane conditions and then we kill them and eat them.

It is moraly just the same as raising human beings , killing them and eating them, there is no difference, the only difference is the value thatw e place on a human life.

Where does it stop, are we now going to interfere in other medical decisions to preserve life? What is so damn special about a baby that is different from an adult, will we force all diabetics to take thier medicines and all heart patients to exercise, will we force all cancer patients to undergo chemotherapy?

And what about the idiots who threaten my life by driving 59 mph in my residential neighborhood, doesn't my life mattera s much as that baby?

What is the BFD? The same people who decry abortion are also the same ones who think it is okay for a parent to beat the crap out of thier kid and rape them whenever they feel like it. Yes , we must save the babies but then not pay for schools and housing, let them grow up in some desperate ghetto where they will have most of thier humanity squashed.

Don't even get me started on the thirteen million children who die of preventable causes , musch less the urban homeless children that exist all over the world. Save the American babies, but let those third world and american urban kids go to hell.

There is some double standard at work when it comes to abortion, reverence for life means reverence for all life, not just some cute unborn baby. Do you think cows and pigs like being castrated?

The f******g hypocrisy makes me want to puke.

[Rant]

I have has a crappy week at work, I see the product of our societies inequity, domestic violence. I am sick of the dam* hypocrisy, save the babies , save the babies, but if your neighbor beats the crap out of his wife and rapes the kids, just go and look the other way!

[Yahweh]

I've followed just about every abortion thread I've come across on this board.

A few points I dont like:
1. Pro-Choice, "The fetus isnt a person"

2. Pro-Choice, "The fetus isnt conscious"

(Note: No, the fetuses cannot feel pain. From Medical Research Council - Fetal Pain (http://www.mrc.ac.uk/prn/index/publications/publications-research_reviews/publications-fetal_pain_summary_report.htm):
Can the fetus feel pain?

Much public concern has been raised over the possibility that a fetus can feel pain. Fetuses may appear to respond to stimuli by movement, and this has been interpreted as indicating that they are able to feel pain. This is however likely to be incorrect, as these movements are thought to be reflexes generated by the spinal cord, and not associated with conscious awareness. It would thus be a mistake to see these movements as genuine expressions of pain.)

I dont like those particular comments because they sound a bit morbid to justify a stance.

Other points I dont like:
1. Pro-Life, "The fetus is a person"

2. Pro-Life, "The fetus is a potential person"

3. Pro-Life, "The baby has rights also"

4. Pro-Life, "You had sex, now you take the responsibility for your actions"

5. Pro-Life, "You can always give your baby up for adoption"

I honestly dont think those matter when you consider the legalities and consequences of a total (or even semi) abortion ban (option 4 is a morbid justification). Option 1 implies fetuses are guarenteed protection of life, however you have to neglect, bend, and break quite a few other laws (as well as disregard any choice and wellbeing the mother has) to make that option work. I dont like the last option because its obvious adotion, raising the child as your own, and abortion are not mutually exclusive of one another.


A few points I do like:
1. Pro-choice, The government cannot in any way, shape, or form force a woman to to give birth against her will.

2. Pro-choice, I think it was Yahzi who said something like "Jumping out of an airplane is a death sentence, if it weren't for parachutes. Having sex is a pregnancy sentence, if it weren't for birth control. Now if your parachute fails to open, you are not assigned intent [of suicide]; but if you become pregnant, suddenly you are. Huh?"

3. Abortion-Neutral, "I'm a guy, my opinion doesnt matter".

4. Pro-Choice, the government cannot deny a person of needed medical services (where abortions are medical services)

5. Pro-Choice, there is no such thing as an 18-year "inconvenience".

6. Pro-Choice, and of course, that always reliable Undue Burden Claus.

[calladus]

Originally posted by neutrino_cannon
In a stunning revelation today, I have discovered I don't really know the answer to everything.

I was asked my opinion on abortion, which really meant whether I was on thier side or not, and I realized I did not know the answer at all.

It would be madness to dispute a fetus, or even a sperm and egg just fused, is/are alive, and most certainly human in origin, if not wholely human. Does that even enter the equation though? Things alive, an most certainly human in origin, such as apendixes are rutinely removed and discarded without any (or at least much) fuss.

I desire is the correct answer here, and none of that "there is no right answer", there's always a correct answer, and I ought to posses it, here, now. ;)

Uh, sperm are also alive, along with the egg, even unfused.

A fetus is just the means that sperm and ova use to produce more sperm and ova.

Therefore, masturbation is murder!

[neutrino_cannon]

Originally posted by Yahweh
I dont like the last option because its obvious adotion, raising the child as your own, and abortion are not mutually exclusive of one another.




Huh? Could you explain this one?

Clearly, the argument of the feotuse's potential ad absurdibus reductus would imply my imorality by shedding skin, which when cloned is potentially human.

I agree with upchurch, objective lines between subjective concepts are hard things to draw in the slate.

I'm a little worried by the peripheral implications parachute argument, for starters, humans aren't nearly so fertile that you could say sex will necessarily result in pregnancy.

And what the heck does the airplane represent then? Virginity?

Why would anyone jump out of a perfectly good airplne? For fun?

Anyhow, the severity, as I understand it, of an abortion relegates it to a role other than a form of contraception. Emergency contraception (day after pills) would seem more analougous to an emergency parachute.


Just out of curiosity, how often is it medically necessary to abort a feotus to save the mother's life? That would be the ultimate manefestation of the argument that you cannot morally force the mother to have the child.

On the other hand, if we didn't allow births hazardous to the mother, and sometimes fatal, there would be no Mary Shelley. :(

What about unecessary burden after the baby is born? Does the line get crossed once the baby is no longer directly reliant upon the mother's body, or does it get crossed sometime around the end of the first trimester (or any other arbitrarily assigned time)?

[Fun2BFree]

Right? Wrong? Heavy words and not defined..

what is the right temperature for water? It all depends on what you want to achieve..an ice cube, a bath, a swimming pool, or a cold drink...Same goes for behavior---decide what you are trying to achieve by proscribing or permitting abortion and figure out if what you are achieving matches what you ultimately want to achieve..when they do--you got it "right."

[athon]

I love it when this topic comes up - as we've already said, it cannot be argued on the grounds of rational thought. The potential of a life has no real quantitative value. You cannot measure it. To me, it's an abstract notion of what is 'alive' and, in addition, what is 'human'. It's an emotional reaction, what we can call 'spirit' in a non-metaphysical sense.

As has been pointed out, there is no real cross-over between what is living and what is not, hence it is potential. However this doesn't help, as all sperm have potential, as does every egg. When it comes down to it, we can't ever find common ground on which we can all agree, because it is not a field where intellect can find a solution.

Athon

[fhios]

Originally posted by c4ts
If something isn't even aware that it is alive, killing it is like crushing a rock or chopping down a tree. After all, if something isn't aware that it lives, life and death are no different to it.

No, it could still be aware of pain, and therefore abortion could be the equivelent of torture. Birds, as an example, probably aren't aware that they are alive--meaning, very possibly, that they simply lack the cognitive powers to imagine themselves as dead--but they are able to percieve pain and to flee it. yes,someone has posted that they find this unlikely; well, "unlikely" is a very slippery word. Something can seem unlikely in science until the moment the next discovery makes it seem painfully obvious. Do you want to base your moral decisions on a system of thought that essentially goes out of its way to change itself, and which is limitted to the purely empirical?

Also, here's a thought I find worthy of discussion: the first poster mentions the probable lack of a soul as justification for abortion. As an atheist, I find the idea that life is finite to be a reason to avoid abortion. After all, if something has no life but this one, doesn't that make the ending of that life simply and only a form of murder? There may be justifications for it--there is a such thing as justifiable homicide, too--but, given these accumptions, someone would need to make that sort of justifications.

Last thought: Can somebody name a positive social benefit to abortion? Almost all justifications for it are based on freedom of choice, and assume freedom of choice to be the paramount issue in the question; in short, they often simply ignore any arguement about the possible immorality of this action. Can anyone actually confront that issue and offer a reason to see it as something good?

[Peter Soderqvist]

Originally posted by phildonnia


The analogy is imperfect in precisely the area under debate. Suppose that the only way for the police to evict tenants is to shoot them in the head and throw them in the garbage. Would you still say that a person has a legal right to evict tenants?

Oh, and fetuses aren't always bitching about the plumbing.

Soderqvist1: the womb is warm, and fit for the zygote's life just as the room are for the guest in the winter, and the tenant can order the guest to leave the house even if the guest freeze to death, since these occupants have no rights, and thus their life are dependent on the host's affectional values! Since if the visitor is a guest, or an occupant have no objective base, just as if the zygote is a child or a cell-aggregate. A medical doctor, or the police have the formal authority to through them out, if that is in accord with the host's whim!

[Peter Soderqvist]

TO FHIOS


Last thought: Can somebody name a positive social benefit to abortion? Almost all justifications for it are based on freedom of choice, and assume freedom of choice to be the paramount issue in the question; in short, they often simply ignore any argument about the possible immorality of this action. Can anyone actually confront that issue and offer a reason to see it as something good?


Soderqvist1: it is heartless to let unwanted children to be born!
It has already been pointed out in this topic that a loved or a wanted child has much higher probability to well being, or to success with his life, than an unwanted child has! An unwanted child is in general no good social investment, nor is anti abortion stance economical defensible! It is possible for a woman to get 10 or 15 children, but as a rule she has no possibility to take care, or feed them all! So it stands to reason that to remove the unwanted ones, potentially by contraception, and actually by abortion, and to take care of the loved ones by give them good upbringings!