Another thread about Abortion

[inBOIL]

Originally Posted by Latenter

As far as when we can determine that a fetus is a person, I think there needs to be a hard, scientific definition.

This is what we need, but the problem is that fetal development is a gradual thing. Any line that's drawn will be imprecise and somewhat arbitrary. It might make sense to develop a series of legal definitions of personhood, each more restrictive than the last, to govern what can and can't be done at a certain stage of development. (e.g. a class I fetus can be aborted for any reason, a class III can be aborted only if the mother's health is at risk) Of course, this just makes the line-drawing more complicated, and although it may be more representative of biological reality, I'm not sure it's a better moral solution.

Originally Posted by Latenter

I never claimed that this is the point where a fetus can survive without outside help. I know it's not fully developed, but it's human. A full grown cow, with complete brain and everything I'm ok with killing, eating even. It's just the point, to me, where a person (and not their support system/organs) begins.

The reason I make the distinction, (I don't make any laws so all of this is my opinion) is that you don't count your arm as a separate entity from yourself, even if cut off. The difference between biological mass and an individual life is due to the brain/nervous system. That's why the mad scientists talk about brain transplants.

This is part of the problem with defining 'human'. If you rely on CNS development, you invite comparisons between humans and other animals. There's a point at which a human fetus is less developed than an adult cow. If you accept this metric (for example) as a justification for abortion, then you can also apply it to humans that are severely mentally retarded or injured. If an adult human has lower neural functioning than a cow, does he lose the right to life? I think most people would say no. Any rule we create governing abortion has to hold in other situations concerning people with diminished capacities.

[Deltona Couple]

So after reading this thread, I am coming to the conclusion that there are people out there who believe it is just FINE for a woman to decide to abort a child, without the father's say so, even if HE could be a loving single parent. However if the mother decides to keep the child, and the father doesn't want anything to do with said child, that he is STILL going to be paying out his butt for child support. Somehow I look at this logic as hypocritical. It seems to me that the woman has all the power here, and men just have to come along for the ride.

To say that a man has nothing to do at all with the process is either misinformed, or has not seen the proper combination of parents. Oh I will agree that the physical and hormonal conditions are brunted by the woman, but a proper father is there all the time, doing what he can to comfort and support the woman. Is that not a reasonably equal share of the burden? I was there from conception to birth of all 3 of my kids. I was there for her, sitting up all night brushing her hair, holding her hand when the cramps and pains were too much. I was the one who made mid morning trips to the store for ANYTHING that she asked for, and still got up to go to work the next morning. I was the one who made sure that if there was ANYTHING that she wanted or needed, I took care of it. Are you saying that what I did was meaningless compared to her? After the kids were born I was the one who got up several times through the night to take care of the child so SHE could get a good night rest, and AGAIN went to work, sometimes without a SINGLE minute of sleep. When they got sick, I was the one who made sure they got to the doctor on time, I was the one who took care of them, I was the one who gave them baths while SHE sat and watched her TV, complaining that SHE was tired. So for those who say a man has no equal part in the gestation of a child is WELL misinformed! I was there from the day they were conceived, until today when so far they have grown into WONDERFUL and intelligent children, with a bright future ahead of them all....And if my wife had had HER say in it all, I would only have ONE child in my life. Now which of you is going to tell 2 of my kids that THEY don't have a right to be here because I should have let their mother abort them instead of DEMAND that they be born?

[Latenter]

Originally Posted by inBOIL

This is what we need, but the problem is that fetal development is a gradual thing. Any line that's drawn will be imprecise and somewhat arbitrary. It might make sense to develop a series of legal definitions of personhood, each more restrictive than the last, to govern what can and can't be done at a certain stage of development. (e.g. a class I fetus can be aborted for any reason, a class III can be aborted only if the mother's health is at risk) Of course, this just makes the line-drawing more complicated, and although it may be more representative of biological reality, I'm not sure it's a better moral solution.


This is part of the problem with defining 'human'. If you rely on CNS development, you invite comparisons between humans and other animals. There's a point at which a human fetus is less developed than an adult cow. If you accept this metric (for example) as a justification for abortion, then you can also apply it to humans that are severely mentally retarded or injured. If an adult human has lower neural functioning than a cow, does he lose the right to life? I think most people would say no. Any rule we create governing abortion has to hold in other situations concerning people with diminished capacities.

I agree that there is a lot of imprecision with all of it, and unfortunately this is an issue that people will never unanimously agree on. I don't know what best solution is, though I have my personal opinions.

I do want to point out I wasn't using levels of cognitive development as a cut off point. I value even most disabled human above the brightest cow, even if the cow is smarter. Yes, a full grown animal is more developed than a 4 week old fetus, but the animal still isn't human. The fetus is, it just isn't finished growing. That's why I put my line at the start of CNS development. It's past the point of separation for twins, which we know gives different individuals, but at that point the fetus starts to develop what becomes its own brain. It's not from a real doctor, but I agree with the quote: “If the soul exists, it exists in the brain” Dr. Suresh on Heroes

Yes, this is my opinion, but too many people ignore the issue of the child in the name of personal freedom. Most people are against late term abortion under normal circumstances, but then it's all shades of grey. It's just that the same arguments used to support late term are used the rest of the time too, so I don't consider them valid (that's not saying there aren't arguments for abortion that don't apply to late term.)

[mixedmedia]

Originally Posted by shakran

And yet it still favors women by a wide margin. We must be incredibly generous.

It's your decision whether or not to have the kid, even if you rigged the birth control to fail so that you could have one. We have no say.

It's then our responsibility to at minimum help pay for the kid that we didn't want and that you possibly tricked us into having. And if we say we didn't want the kid and we don't want any part of it, you can take us to court and have our wages garnished, and in some jurisdictions, get us published in the town paper as a deadbeat dad.

So this is what you base your opinion on? Sounds hostile, personal and emotional.

[roachboy]

well you can see from the way the positions are outlined in this thread the same problem that happens in 3-d between pro- and anti-choice folk: the arguments work past each other, there's no agreement about premise, no points of contact. the upshot of that is that abortion should remain legal and safe.

if you oppose it on principle don't have one.

this isn't to diminish the objections of the communities of folk who oppose the procedure, either. if anything, it acknowledges that within these communities, there are shared arguments/viewpoints that would lead folk within them to not avail themselves of it. nothing about this extends beyond the limits of these communities.

the claim that abortion is murder for example rests upon a sequence of assumptions that are particular to certain communities. there is no agreement about the validity of these assumptions in the broader context. so what that amounts to is basically that *for these folk* abortion is seen in this way--but there's nothing else to acknowledge.

at bottom, i see this as a complex and particular decision. i don't have a general position about it really because it seems meaningless to develop one--this at the level of what i would think were someone i was involved with or was close to me were to confront this choice. there are too many situational parameters that would be fundamental to my thinking. but in the end, i am of the opinion that the choice should be the woman's choice. that's it.

i don't know how i would react were a basic differend to arise over whether or not the procedure should happen--i really don't. but because i do not assume this is a cavalier decision for anyone, i don't think not knowing in advance is terribly important.

[Latenter]

Originally Posted by roachboy

if you oppose it on principle don't have one.

That's the difference though for people who are against abortion vs those against drugs or sex or whatever. So long as you do it to yourself, you only affect yourself. Abortion affects the baby, and while some people don't think it's a baby and dismiss it, others don't, and never will.

I oppose heavy drinking on moral grounds, but I don't think it should be illegal so long as you don't drive/attack someone/piss on my house.

Originally Posted by roachboy

the claim that abortion is murder for example rests upon a sequence of assumptions that are particular to certain communities. there is no agreement about the validity of these assumptions in the broader context. so what that amounts to is basically that *for these folk* abortion is seen in this way--but there's nothing else to acknowledge.

I posted earlier about where I think the boundaries are, but what about when it's not as ambiguous? I know late term abortion gets brought up a lot in these debates, but what about a situation where it's not rape or medical, the mother just either didn't know or couldn't decide before? Even if the baby is viable, or at least has a small chance, it's still legal in some states. Should this be a decision by the mother, even though if the baby were removed and smothered in the incubator it would be a crime?

Not trying to attack anyone, just saying again, the argument is "At what point does a fetus become a person?" If it's a person, we have to protect it, regardless who it offends. I say it's before birth, and before most other people would say.

Maybe I should quit posting for a while

[tisonlyi]

Originally Posted by Latenter

That's the difference though for people who are against abortion vs those against drugs or sex or whatever. So long as you do it to yourself, you only affect yourself. Abortion affects the baby, and while some people don't think it's a baby and dismiss it, others don't, and never will.

I oppose heavy drinking on moral grounds, but I don't think it should be illegal so long as you don't drive/attack someone/piss on my house.



I posted earlier about where I think the boundaries are, but what about when it's not as ambiguous? I know late term abortion gets brought up a lot in these debates, but what about a situation where it's not rape or medical, the mother just either didn't know or couldn't decide before? Even if the baby is viable, or at least has a small chance, it's still legal in some states. Should this be a decision by the mother, even though if the baby were removed and smothered in the incubator it would be a crime?

Not trying to attack anyone, just saying again, the argument is "At what point does a fetus become a person?" If it's a person, we have to protect it, regardless who it offends. I say it's before birth, and before most other people would say.

Maybe I should quit posting for a while

Man, there's long way between 'before birth' and '2 weeks after fertilization'.

I think pretty much everyone agrees that late term abortions should be strictly regulated, and they are... always have been everywhere except the backstreet, iirc.

I think maybe you should educate yourself about the outcomes for premature births between 16 and 26 weeks.

HINT: They're not pretty at all.

[Xerxys]

Originally Posted by Deltona Couple

So after reading this thread, I am coming to the conclusion that there are people out there who believe it is just FINE for a woman to decide to abort a child, without the father's say so, even if HE could be a loving single parent. However if the mother decides to keep the child, and the father doesn't want anything to do with said child, that he is STILL going to be paying out his butt for child support. Somehow I look at this logic as hypocritical. It seems to me that the woman has all the power here, and men just have to come along for the ride.

To say that a man has nothing to do at all with the process is either misinformed, or has not seen the proper combination of parents. Oh I will agree that the physical and hormonal conditions are brunted by the woman, but a proper father is there all the time, doing what he can to comfort and support the woman. Is that not a reasonably equal share of the burden? I was there from conception to birth of all 3 of my kids. I was there for her, sitting up all night brushing her hair, holding her hand when the cramps and pains were too much. I was the one who made mid morning trips to the store for ANYTHING that she asked for, and still got up to go to work the next morning. I was the one who made sure that if there was ANYTHING that she wanted or needed, I took care of it. Are you saying that what I did was meaningless compared to her? After the kids were born I was the one who got up several times through the night to take care of the child so SHE could get a good night rest, and AGAIN went to work, sometimes without a SINGLE minute of sleep. When they got sick, I was the one who made sure they got to the doctor on time, I was the one who took care of them, I was the one who gave them baths while SHE sat and watched her TV, complaining that SHE was tired. So for those who say a man has no equal part in the gestation of a child is WELL misinformed! I was there from the day they were conceived, until today when so far they have grown into WONDERFUL and intelligent children, with a bright future ahead of them all....And if my wife had had HER say in it all, I would only have ONE child in my life. Now which of you is going to tell 2 of my kids that THEY don't have a right to be here because I should have let their mother abort them instead of DEMAND that they be born?

Don't get me wrong DC, The ones opposed to abortion are of the stance that the male shouldn't even have a say in aborting a child. I personally believe that abortion should ONLY be done because a health risk/complication presented itself. Not any other reason around that.

[Halanna]

Originally Posted by Latenter

That's why the mad scientists talk about brain transplants.

The mad scientists in the 1940's and 50's talked about heart transplants, but it became reality in 1967. I don't think a brain transplant will occur that quickly, but it will happen. Not a question of if, a question of when.

Originally Posted by Latenter

How is it not life? It's organic matter reproducing and growing. My point is that once neural activity exists in a human brain, there's something going on, and I believe it has rights. Where do you draw the line? I think it's silly to say that a baby isn't it's own entity until the cord is cut, or that depending on the hospital it could or could not be viable. I'm just trying to find a specific, scientifically justifiable point..

To me, it isn't. Organic matter reproducing doesn't constitute life. Neural activity at that point is, in my opinion, simply electrical impulses and does not equal life.

At it's most base, it's entirely true that a baby is not it's own entity until the cord is cut because the baby relies on the host body for survival, then it's sink or swim.

On this track of thinking, it's saying the rights of the reproducing organic matter trump the rights of the already independent individual host who is of advanced age compared to the organic matter and the host is already a tooth on the cog of the vast wheels that constitute society.

If the host can not decide on the destiny of it's own existence and it's ability to reproduce, than who shall we leave this monstrously massive decision to? Government? Religion? Society?

Government is the umbrella you live under.

Religion is a personal choice not to be pushed on others not of your religion.

Society is how we all live together and respect one another as a whole.

Freedom is the right to choose.

Freedom means our forefathers through blood, gave us the right to question government, have religious freedom and form a more perfect union, society.

[roachboy]

latenter: i read the thread and was aware of your post when i wrote what i did. your position operates under the assumption that there is a tipping point in fetal development past which the problem switches from one of the choice of the mother to some "right to life" on the part of the developing child. i don't think there is any such point, mostly because i reject the premise your argument operates from--that there is such a point that can be determined. but that's my view, and it isn't really germaine in the context of the paragraph you quoted. the point there had to do with the question of legality and by extension safety of the procedure.

i also argued that i think it patronizing in the extreme to imagine that unless such a tipping point is determined, women will go around having abortions as a type of recreational activity or some such. that the decision will suddenly become easy..i see that as a fantasy predicated on notions of man's fallennes that i see no reason to take seriously because, while i know the mythology that it comes from, i dont see it as more than a mythology.

this last argument links to my personal view which i outlined in the last paragraph of the post.

so while you are of course free to worry questions of largely hypothetical late-term abortions, the question you raise dont seem to me particularly interesting, precisely because the way you framed your post abstracts the phase of development of the child from all other factors, as if those factors don't matter. i see them as fundamental. that was the main point i made in the last paragraph of the post.

[inBOIL]

Originally Posted by tisonlyi

I think maybe you should educate yourself about the outcomes for premature births between 16 and 26 weeks.

HINT: They're not pretty at all.

Do you mean to imply that being unlikely to survive outside of a certain set of conditions (which must be provided at some cost by another individual) renders an entity undeserving of life?

Originally Posted by Halanna

To me, it isn't. Organic matter reproducing doesn't constitute life. Neural activity at that point is, in my opinion, simply electrical impulses and does not equal life.

At it's most base, it's entirely true that a baby is not it's own entity until the cord is cut because the baby relies on the host body for survival, then it's sink or swim.

What does equal life, in your opinion? And why does the baby become it's own entity when the cord is cut?

Originally Posted by Latenter

Maybe I should quit posting for a while

Please don't. I think you're bringing up some good points.

Originally Posted by roachboy

so while you are of course free to worry questions of largely hypothetical late-term abortions, the question you raise dont seem to me particularly interesting, precisely because the way you framed your post abstracts the phase of development of the child from all other factors, as if those factors don't matter. i see them as fundamental. that was the main point i made in the last paragraph of the post.

I think Latenter's point (and I hope to be corrected if I've misinterpreted) is that the determination of whether or not the fetus counts as a human life trumps all (or most) other factors. If it is a life, than the non-fatal health issues that the woman faces are not sufficiently important to allow abortion, and if it isn't a life, then abortion is not ethically different from having a mole removed. The focus on developmental stage is an effort to determine whether or not a fetus is a life.

[Halanna]

Originally Posted by inBOIL

What does equal life, in your opinion? And why does the baby become it's own entity when the cord is cut?

You are an entity when you are independent. As long as you are dependent on the host, you are not an entity.

What is life. Big question! I certainly can't answer that. If I could, I'd be wealthy!

I think there is a difference between the definition of "life" and "life as we know it".

There is life, and there is life on the level that we believe ourselves to be equal to, within our abilty to understand it.

I think much larger problems are facing the human race than abortion. Actually, too many who should not keep reproducing are doing just that, and those who have the genes to further humanity are not.

[highthief]

Generally it's wrong. I can't stand people using it as a form of birth control. There are some very few circumstances (health of the mother, rape, severe birth defects) where I can go along with it but otherwise I don't hold with it. Inconvenience certainly isn't a valid reason.

Both my wife and I were pro-choice - until we had our first child and came to understand the process better. Now we would probably fall into the pro-life camp.

Currently, Mrs. Highthief is 18 weeks along with our second child. So this is not just an academic discussion for me on many levels.

[Jozrael]

I am currently using it as a form of birth control.

My girlfriend is currently on the pill. On occasion (notably when she has been taking the pill less than a week), we use a condom. Perhaps I could use this everytime. Tbh, it doesn't really matter.

If she gets pregnant, we are getting an abortion.


Now there's a couple alternatives to this.

One: we could not have sex until point X in the future (Define point X as marriage, or financial stability, or both (in our case, both)).

Reason we're not doing it: Because it's not coming for a significant amount of time (we're both in college, not even engaged yet, etc.). And we'd like to be having sex during our best years . Call us irresponsible, but we've made the choice to not put off sex for X number of years. Since I was originally raised pretty fundamentalist Christian, this was a pretty hard choice for me to make since I consider abortion murder.

Two: we could simply carry the child to term if we conceive.

Uh uh, no chance, no way. I am (and she's not, we've separately come to this conclusion, as well as together) NOT going to deal with a baby at this point in our lives. We simply don't have the responsibility/financial resources to do so.

[Hektore]

Originally Posted by roachboy

latenter: i read the thread and was aware of your post when i wrote what i did. your position operates under the assumption that there is a tipping point in fetal development past which the problem switches from one of the choice of the mother to some "right to life" on the part of the developing child. i don't think there is any such point, mostly because i reject the premise your argument operates from--that there is such a point that can be determined. but that's my view, and it isn't really germaine in the context of the paragraph you quoted. the point there had to do with the question of legality and by extension safety of the procedure.

//note: not necessarily directed at you roachboy; more that the bit I've quoted got my gears turning and somewhat provides a context for what I've written and it helps me to be able to express myself more clearly(to me at least) to write as though I'm directing it at you (not you specifically but someone, you just happen to be the person I quoted).

To pick at your brain some - The 'right to life' appears somewhere. We lock up mothers for say...drowning their toddlers in a lake - as retribution for that violation of the 'right to life'. I suppose the 'right' doesn't have to appear, it could have been there from the get go, the whole 'every sperm is sacred' bit. I don't really think that anyone actually thinks that (except for the whole anti-contraception crowd which is generally labeled as loony) and certainly we don't all believe that or we wouldn't have ever allowed abortion in the first place. So then if it isn't in there the whole time, then it is in there at some point later, it has to go in sometime between there? Whether we can label it or not?

That's what the debate really centers around where that mucky unequivocal 'right to life' pops up. Just because we can't agree or a point where that happens (whether you choose to call that point 100% human or 60% human and then say 60% human sufficient cause) or on criteria on to judge what constitutes 'human life' doesn't mean it isn't there. I mean, if things exist somehow now, that is different than before there had to be a transition right? How can you reject the existence of the transition just because you can't identify where/when/how it was.

Although...If you think the position is arbitrary - that it is entirely relative to the individual, then nobody can really tell anyone else when life begins it only makes sense in an individual context. It appears the problem of 'when life begins' strangely seems to annihilate itself. I mean, if everyone is equally right due to the arbitrary nature of the line, then 'right' doesn't really mean anything at all. The practical upshot is it allows us to ignore the pesky right to life question and move on to other considerations: personal liberty, or social duty, women's rights, etc.

This view results in a degenerative morality though - any time we disagree about morality and don't have a clear point of reference (which is never) - anything goes. The only time morality becomes enforceable on say a group level is when we all agree, or at least enough of us to enforce it. This makes me mentally uncomfortable, the idea of there not being a standard morality which we can reference (however it is I seem to think we reference it), although if I'm honest with myself I think it makes me uncomfortable because it resembles reality so well - I must ponder this more.

[Latenter]

Whole bunch of stuff to reply to.

Originally Posted by inBOIL

I think Latenter's point (and I hope to be corrected if I've misinterpreted) is that the determination of whether or not the fetus counts as a human life trumps all (or most) other factors. If it is a life, than the non-fatal health issues that the woman faces are not sufficiently important to allow abortion, and if it isn't a life, then abortion is not ethically different from having a mole removed. The focus on developmental stage is an effort to determine whether or not a fetus is a life.

Thank you, inBoil. This is my point exactly. I think a lot of people are misunderstanding my argument, and you worded it better than I did.

Originally Posted by tisonlyi

I think pretty much everyone agrees that late term abortions should be strictly regulated, and they are... always have been everywhere except the backstreet, iirc.

I think maybe you should educate yourself about the outcomes for premature births between 16 and 26 weeks.

Not everyone agrees on that. They're still legal in 13 states, and what happens at that point that makes the baby more human than 2 weeks before? I'm not arguing that the baby could survive then, although from week 21 on it is possible. It's besides the point. If late term abortions are distasteful, why are earlier abortions not?

Originally Posted by Halanna

The mad scientists in the 1940's and 50's talked about heart transplants, but it became reality in 1967. I don't think a brain transplant will occur that quickly, but it will happen. Not a question of if, a question of when.

And then we'll have immortality. Or, at least, a whole bunch of 250 year olds with Alzheimers. I just meant that the brain is what makes you you. You can get a new heart, or prosthetic arm, but a new brain isn't you anymore (at least until we get way out there in scifi)

Originally Posted by Halanna

At it's most base, it's entirely true that a baby is not it's own entity until the cord is cut because the baby relies on the host body for survival, then it's sink or swim.

On this track of thinking, it's saying the rights of the reproducing organic matter trump the rights of the already independent individual host who is of advanced age compared to the organic matter and the host is already a tooth on the cog of the vast wheels that constitute society.

If the host can not decide on the destiny of it's own existence and it's ability to reproduce, than who shall we leave this monstrously massive decision to? Government? Religion? Society?

Originally Posted by Halanna

You are an entity when you are independent. As long as you are dependent on the host, you are not an entity.

How many newborn babies do you know of that could survive if you left them lying on the floor and ignored them? Even most 5 year olds wouldn't survive if you didn't keep providing food to eat. Children are dependent, and though not physically attached anymore are not able to survive on their own.

The "host" still has rights. Those rights do not trump the rights of other adults, and I believe should not trump the rights of the baby. You have plenty of opportunity to exercise reproductive rights. Abstinence (not popular) and birth control are available. So is permanent sterilization. No one is forcing you to get pregnant (unless you're blaming God. Good luck then.) It does happen by accident, but at that point the new life has to be considered. Car crashes happen by accident too, but you have to deal with the results. You can't shoot the other driver to prevent paying claims if you're at fault.

Originally Posted by Jozrael

Call us irresponsible, but we've made the choice to not put off sex for X number of years. Since I was originally raised pretty fundamentalist Christian, this was a pretty hard choice for me to make since I consider abortion murder.

It's this cognitive dissonance I don't understand. Not against you personally, but many pro-choice people seem to be in the same position. You specifically consider it murder, but you're still ok with it? It might make things easier in your life, but in my opinion you can't just pretend what you're doing doesn't impact anyone but yourself.

It seems like many people try to cling to their rights, and pretend there are no other issues to discuss because the implications are ugly.

[tisonlyi]

All abortions are distasteful to me.

Distasteful doesn't even come close to a reason to invade someone else's body with my opinions.

[Latenter]

Originally Posted by tisonlyi

All abortions are distasteful to me.

Distasteful doesn't even come close to a reason to invade someone else's body with my opinions.

And if we were talking about someone choosing to have a nose job or tattoos or anything else I would completely agree with you. It's just that's it's not your body that's being destroyed, and no one is there to protect the rights of the other party.

[tisonlyi]

'your', 'my' and 'its'.

The possession of a living body requires a sufficiently complex sentience to make the assertion.

There is no sentience in a cluster of cells 2 weeks post-fertilization.

There is no sentience, even to a level of animal sentience (ie. the sensations of pleasure and pain), in a 23 week old foetus. The creatures that emerge from extreme premature births back that up.

A cell is not sentient.
A cluster of cells is not sentient.
A cluster of nerve cells is not sentient.
A somewhat organised collection of nerve cells is still nowhere near complex enogh to make the assertion.

Sentience (subjective consciousness) of a certain critical mass begets sapience (subjective consciousness with wisdom/judgement/aware self-directed purpose/etc).

If you're concerned with the treatment of Homo Sapiens from fertilization, then surely you will accept that an abundance of extremely complex nerves are required to even start on the path up from pre-sentience, through sentience and up to sapience and membership of the Homo Sapiens club? Until there's a point of rudimentary sentience, there is no independent entity there. The host has 100% rights.

If you don't accept that, you're making extreme suggestions as to how we should treat an enormous swathe of animals in the extreme lower orders and perhaps even parasites and diseases...

If you claim that there's something special about the DNA of our species, then you're making privilege assertions for molecules... Which is... interesting. (implications for the sentience of organs in transplants, etc.)

Some of this might seem extreme and even ridiculous, but if you want to push assertions of possession in a materialist manner back even to pre-embryonic stages, then you've charged through a range of credulous levels.

Basically, it seems to me, you're trying to materially rationalise the imparting of a soul upon conception. Be honest about that if you are, but there's no point in trying to look at cell development at 2 weeks post-fertilization or assertions about sentience in that endeavour.

I prefer my arguments to remain wholly and entirely in the known Universe.

--

Also, late term abortions being illegal does not, in no way whatsoever, mean they available on demand without regulation - despite what certain extremists might tell you.

(The Dr who was killed recently was widely denounced in extreme media with regard to supplyinglate term abortion on dubious grounds, which the man was 100% cleared of. Late term abortions from this man were not 'on demand'.)

Outside survivability is an issue, clearly, because if 100% of foetuses at 21 weeks could survive with reasonable outcomes, then there would be no justifiable position to abort rather than remove from the womb and gestate outside the womb. I should hope you'd be in favour of delivery rather than termination, right?

If there is no possibility of the foetus at a particular point developing into a functioning human being, has no sentience let alone sapience and is utterly unwanted, then please justify its rights over the mother and its difference from a parasite?

DNA is not an answer.

If men carried children, abortion pills would be available in supermarkets.

[roachboy]

inboil:

If it is a life, than the non-fatal health issues that the woman faces are not sufficiently important to allow abortion, and if it isn't a life, then abortion is not ethically different from having a mole removed.

i chop this out of your paragraph restating an earlier argument because i think this gets to the crux of what i'm arguing (though in an inverted way).
i reject the idea that absent some "objective" rule or standard that abortion ceases to be an ethical problem. the are several grounds for this, some of which i've already gone through above--but i don't see this as a matter that anyone approaches in a cavalier manner--so it is simply not the case that the anti-choice people and their world view is all that stands between the present and an absolute erasure of any trace of ethics.

(aside: think of the arrogance implicit in this assumption.)

the folk i know who've had abortions made a quite difficult and complicated choice based on the way in which they weighed out a wide range of contextual factors---no-one that i've talked to or read stuff from or heard from indirectly treated the decision as something trivial...la la la today i went shopping for turnips, tomorrow i shall off my child, la la la.

it seems to me that this is a very difficult, complex decision. and i see no basis---at all---why anyone who is not directly involved with such a decision should put themselves in the position of determining what kinds of considerations do and do not count in making it. "am i ready to be a mother?" is no more or less legitimate a question than any other---

if, say, you occupy a position consitent with the current pope's--which i find ridiculous--that sex is a procreation device only and that fertilization of an egg is god's will so that from this initial point onward, what's really at issue is the unfolding of god's will, not the choices of human beings--then NO considerations on the part of the mother are really of any consequence. but there is no way to extend this logic beyond the confines not just of roman catholicism, but of a subsection of roman catholicism--and the argument is itself entirely theological.

given a pluralist context--which the present pope has a Real Problem with in any event--the furthest it seems legitimate to go is to say that if you oppose abortion don't have one--but (again) that the procedure should be legal as a way to insure its safety.


aside: if the idea of original sin is to you a strangely vindictive fable--which is more or less how i see it---then there's no reason to assume that without the Guidance of some Institution that only chaos would happen. social norms come from all kinds of sources and operate in all kinds of registers--it is simplistic to assume that only the Command/Control model is operative. this is really just another way of saying the same as above.

[Jozrael]

@latenter: I fully cognize the fact that it affects others. Specifically, the unborn child. However, I can sufficiently rationalize this to myself (to help with the dissonance ) that I am ok with not putting off sex for several years to prevent the chance of requiring an abortion.

Here are the primary rationalizations:

One: Likelihood. With my gf having a nigh perfect attendance record on her pill (being off by an hour twice...in two years), we should have a 99.7% protection rating. This is lessened slightly by our use of condoms twice. (We're not exactly rabbits since the availability of safe (as in uninterrupted) sex times is infrequent). The chance of actually having to resort to an abortion is relatively miniscule.

Two: Cost-benefit analysis, taking #1 into effect. We could not have sex, and not risk an abortion. Or, we could have sex with the above protections, and risk an abortion. Apply a moral 'cost' to having an abortion. It would be quite high for me and my gf. Now, multiply it by .003 (chance of it occurring). Does that outweigh the benefits of several years of sex?

Three: It's a fetus, and while I am killing a potential life (where the murder aspect of it comes for me)...it's not actually a life yet. It won't understand what I'm doing to it. That makes it more impersonal, and more of a decision I'm able to live with. Could I have sex if I had a .003 chance of having to pull out a gun and shoot a living child (and not be punished for it?). I don't think so. So I guess all three of these rationalizations are needed for me to be ok with it

Taking that logical approach to it, I decided it wasn't worth it to wait, despite having a very high moral cost. It's kind of the same way that companies place a value on human lives. Did you know that your insurance company places about $50,000 on yours? Although, if new legistlation is passed, that figure will rise to $129,000.

EDIT: A clarification in light of my new post. I don't intend to say that it being a fetus makes it less of a future person, but that it makes it more impersonal to me and therefore I'm able to table my misgivings far more easily.

[Jinn]

I voted "Abortion is right", because my only feeling about abortion is that I wish more people would partake.

My ethical system is very much rooted in the belief of our material limitations, and I try not to ascribe animacy when there is clearly none. It's clear WHY we ascribe animacy to inanimate objects, why we give reasons to things when they are truly coincidence, and why we believe 'life' or 'intelligent consciousness' is present when it is clearly not. It has evolutionary and cognitive advantages, and I'm not in the least surprised why we retain it in our modern psyches.

With that said, I do not believe human life begins until the moment of birth. I have a solid scientific backing and am aware of what it tells about cognitive development in the third trimester, but it does little to convince me that it is 'intelligent life' any more than a believe a virus is. Even if I were to agree with the mainstream belief that 'late term abortions' are unethical (as I do in all cases except in the brutal honesty of internet anonymity), I would still not believe that 'potential life' would trump the rights of the woman. Many times the child may survive, but the woman does not. I believe that in all cases we should attempt to save the woman at the expense of the fetus. There are also cases where women were compelled by law to perform a cesarian section to remove a baby prematurely after the woman was diagnosed with cancer. The logic (and unfortunate legal precedent) is that the woman was largely a 'lost cause' and ought to be sacrificed in order to give the child a chance at survival. After all, if the fetus' host died, it wouldn't survive, either. Had the woman chosen that route, I'd be alright with it; but she was compelled by the DA (ankle shackles and all) to undergo C-section to remove the baby and died as a result.

This is by no means the norm, just as 'abortion on demand' is a misnomer. That said, the posters above are very right in discussing sentience. Without that distinction, we'd have certain ethical dilemmas regarding alreadylegal processes, such a putting down a pet whose quality of life has been determined by its owners to be negligible.

[Jozrael]

I'm going to bring up a new concept here, that of personhood. Basically, when I say 'person', I mean 'being with the right to life'.

There are a couple criteria I have for ascribing personhood to a being, but critically important of them is self-awareness. They have to be able to differentiate themselves from the world around them, and have a concept of past and future. Clearly, human beings fall into such a category. However, there are several cases where they do not.

A fetus, an infant, and a comatose vegetable all fall into this category of not being a person. None of them are self-aware. Therefore, I don't simply subscribe the right to life to them. An infant, for example, I find it no more appalling to murder than a dog, in terms of what they can comprehend. (I'm not a horrible person, I swear, let me finish lol).

However, I have a concept of 'future personhood', that with reasonable expectations this person will at some point in the future be of such a state that they DO have self-awareness. A fetus and an infant, circumstances notwithstanding, will eventually grow to be adult human beings, with all the rights attributive to such. A comatose man, in certain conditions, will be expected to be revivable (or have the CHANCE to be revivable) to a normal state of consciousness. (Braindead is a separate matter).

Therefore, just as I imagine it is inhumane to pull the plug on a comatose human that has a great chance of being revived the very next day (or an arbitrary point in the future), I believe it is inhumane to abort a fetus or kill an infant. All three are equally immoral to me, because you are violating the right to life of that future person. So how far back does this go? Well, it's arguable. Conception I'd say. Some might even argue prior to: using birth control is preventing that future person from even being conceived, isn't it? But I think you must limit your reasoning at some point.

So while I would never posit that a fetus is 'alive', persay...it will one day be. And that's why I think abortion is murder.

Some great cognitive dissonance there with my current practices, eh?

[Baraka_Guru]

It would seem those who would defend a fetus should also be vegetarians. Slaughtering animals causes far more suffering than aborting a fetus. Or so I assume.

[Latenter]

Wow, this is quickly reaching Wall-of-Text levels, at which debate will be nearly impossible. Anyway:

Originally Posted by tisonlyi

A cell is not sentient.
A cluster of cells is not sentient.
A cluster of nerve cells is not sentient.
A somewhat organised collection of nerve cells is still nowhere near complex enogh to make the assertion.
...
If you don't accept that, you're making extreme suggestions as to how we should treat an enormous swathe of animals in the extreme lower orders and perhaps even parasites and diseases...

If you claim that there's something special about the DNA of our species, then you're making privilege assertions for molecules... Which is... interesting. (implications for the sentience of organs in transplants, etc.)
...
Basically, it seems to me, you're trying to materially rationalise the imparting of a soul upon conception. Be honest about that if you are, but there's no point in trying to look at cell development at 2 weeks post-fertilization or assertions about sentience in that endeavour.

I prefer my arguments to remain wholly and entirely in the known Universe.
...
Outside survivability is an issue, clearly, because if 100% of foetuses at 21 weeks could survive with reasonable outcomes, then there would be no justifiable position to abort rather than remove from the womb and gestate outside the womb. I should hope you'd be in favour of delivery rather than termination, right?

The problem is that there are inherent disagreements in society regarding the value of humans above other animals. You're pretty much making the assertion that humans are not more special than any other life form except for intelligence. Maybe this is our basic disconnect. It doesn't matter how mentally disabled a child is, they still rank above the sign language speaking gorillas. It's not about just our DNA, it's about humanity itself. We don't grant the same rights to corpses, or amputated limbs, or organs being transplanted.

Fundamentally, yes, I am discussing the "imparting of a soul", but on grounds that are not religious, and you don't even need to believe in a soul to agree with the argument. If you are being so impartial as to rank someone based on the number of synapses firing per second, fine, but that doesn't reflect our society at all. There are intrinsic elements and rights that we grant to human beings, ignoring history or race or disability.

My rationalization for the point I chose is that I see it as the beginning of a distinct individual, dependent, but separate. No longer a possible twin, and having the beginnings of a brain, even if no more complicated than circuit diagrams I could draw in a few hours. That might not be the right spot to choose, but that's my opinion.

Where do you put that point? Yes, I would always be for attempted delivery vs. termination, though with the same consideration taken as with turning off life support on people who will never wake up, etc.

---------- Post added at 04:33 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:15 PM ----------

Originally Posted by Jozrael

Two: Cost-benefit analysis, taking #1 into effect. We could not have sex, and not risk an abortion. Or, we could have sex with the above protections, and risk an abortion. Apply a moral 'cost' to having an abortion. It would be quite high for me and my gf. Now, multiply it by .003 (chance of it occurring). Does that outweigh the benefits of several years of sex?

Three: It's a fetus, and while I am killing a potential life (where the murder aspect of it comes for me)...it's not actually a life yet. It won't understand what I'm doing to it. That makes it more impersonal, and more of a decision I'm able to live with. Could I have sex if I had a .003 chance of having to pull out a gun and shoot a living child (and not be punished for it?). I don't think so. So I guess all three of these rationalizations are needed for me to be ok with it

I can appreciate the logic of your process. The argument of personhood in your post after this one is interesting, and I don't entirely disagree with it.

What I want to throw in though, is that it's not an either/or dilemma.
No sex > abortion * 0.003 ; ok, sure, but I would put:
Cost of abortion > Cost of a few months pregnancy then giving the baby up for adoption

Why isn't that an option? It is a big deal, but basically you're trading what? Nine months of her life (less probably, a few of the months of pregnancy won't be that different from normal for most people) and a few months of your life, vs 78 years (average life expectancy in the US) for the baby. Yes, there's emotional toll on top of that, but I think you know which side I end up on.

Also, for the other posters, I never said anything about the decision to abort being flippant. I'm sure in most cases it's the hardest decision that woman has made, often with long lasting repercussions, even if I disagree about the right to make the decision.

Anyway, I appreciate the debate.

---------- Post added at 04:47 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:33 PM ----------

Jozrael: Was just thinking about it and thought it was funny; if you were an insurance company with the new legislation, you would be willing to pay a $32.25 monthly subscription to have sex with your girlfriend ($129k * 0.003 / 12)

[inBOIL]

Originally Posted by roachboy

i reject the idea that absent some "objective" rule or standard that abortion ceases to be an ethical problem. the are several grounds for this, some of which i've already gone through above--but i don't see this as a matter that anyone approaches in a cavalier manner--so it is simply not the case that the anti-choice people and their world view is all that stands between the present and an absolute erasure of any trace of ethics.

I'm not arguing that anyone does or should treat abortion with a cavalier attitude. However, I don't see an alternative to an either/or approach on the morality of abortion that doesn't at some point place a fetus' right to life on roughly the same level as the mother's wish to avoid a pregnancy. I see this as problematic, because this logic can be applied to any other putative human that presents an inconvenience: infants, young children, brain-damaged adults and the mentally retarded.

it seems to me that this is a very difficult, complex decision. and i see no basis---at all---why anyone who is not directly involved with such a decision should put themselves in the position of determining what kinds of considerations do and do not count in making it. "am i ready to be a mother?" is no more or less legitimate a question than any other---

Then what logically separates abortion from from the killing of infants or the retarded? If a line can't be drawn somewhere beyond which lie those who have an absolute right to life (in the sense that we ascribe that right to roachboy and inboil), then what right does society have to punish or prevent murder? I'm normally against forcing one's morals on others, but at some point doesn't society have to say "enough of us find X wrong that we're going to interfere with anyone attempting it"? I understand that to some extent, determining X must be arbitrary. The abortion debate seems to me to be a way of figuring out where that line should be drawn in the least arbitrary way possible. The problem is, I don't see a good place to draw that line. "Am I ready to be a mother?" is a legitimate question, whether in the context of abortion or infanticide, but "does this entity have the right to live?" seems vastly more important to me.

given a pluralist context--which the present pope has a Real Problem with in any event--the furthest it seems legitimate to go is to say that if you oppose abortion don't have one--but (again) that the procedure should be legal as a way to insure its safety.

I agree with this, but I see it as a temporary measure. We (society) know that women have rights, and we haven't decided if fetuses have rights, so it makes sense to err on the side of protecting rights that we know exist. But resolving this uncertainty is important; we may be allowing innocent people to be victimized.

[tisonlyi]

As soon as you mix 'soul'/quasi-religious and materialist rhetoric you've disconnected from honesty.

The two arguments do not fit together at all.

Materialism deals with measurable, describable Universe.

Any mention of 'soul' immediately moves into a supernatural, idealistic frame of reference that is completely incompatible with a materialistic description.

If you'd like to justify a position of privilege based on the supernatural, do so honestly.

If you'd like to justify a position of privilege based on the material, do so honestly.

"I believe that the soul begins to inhabit a person at the 'collection of cells with development of the proto-cns' stage of the embryo." is not a reasonable argument.

You can't justify mysticism with science or science with mysticism.

[Jozrael]

@Baraka: I don't ascribe personhood to (most) animals. A couple varieties of the ape family, dolphins, elephants...there's a handful more.

I don't consider killing dogs, cats, parakeets, cows, pigs, horses, etc. murder.

@Latenter: Tbh that's a possibility I haven't given enough thought, and I should probably bring it up with my gf soon. It's not an ideal scenario, not as 'clean' as abortion...but, perhaps, more ethically viable for us. Thanks for the food for thought and for making me think in ways I haven't recently xD.

[Latenter]

Originally Posted by tisonlyi

"I believe that the soul begins to inhabit a person at the 'collection of cells with development of the proto-cns' stage of the embryo." is not a reasonable argument.

You can't justify mysticism with science or science with mysticism.

I don't think you're reading my posts very carefully. My mention of a soul is on a purely philosophical level, not religious or mystical. There is a difference between philosophy and mysticism.

You keep claiming materialistic arguments, but you're detached from the realities of society we live in. We ascribe human rights that are protected by the constitution, and stated in the declaration of independence. Other countries hold similar values.

My argument is "I believe that at the development of the proto-CNS stage the embryo embodies enough characterists to become a distinct individual, even without full development, which requires us to assign human rights according to our society." Whether you agree with the argument or not, it is a valid argument to make.

You keep attacking my position, but without giving rationalization for your own. Why does the fetus have to be viable to be alive? At that point it has a brain, we know it would develop into a full child barring miscarriage/disease, and it is certainly homo-sapien. You need an argument stronger than "because it's weak" because that applies to many cases that are not reasonable, like the disabled, etc.

Originally Posted by Jozrael

Thanks for the food for thought and for making me think in ways I haven't recently xD.

It's always great to have a debate where someone actually thinks about the other side, even if they don't end up changing their mind. Too often it's all rhetoric and bashing, without any kind of consideration for what is being said. Thanks!

[Jozrael]

I try to approach every debate with the possibility that I am flat out wrong, or that the other person has a gem of wisdom that I am currently blind to. Course, I have to be shown this, but I try not to make it unduly hard xD

In my thoughts, I had considered adoption but it was before my gf and I had our big abortion babies zomg chats, so it just never even was raised as a possibility. I have the feeling that she won't be ok with it under any circumstances, but it doesn't hurt mentioning :O. I think it would hurt her more to have the baby and have to give it away than to abort it as early as possible. She doesn't subscribe quite to the same rationale I use, but we end up in the same place so it's all good ^^

[mixedmedia]

This is a diversion from the discussion and I am sorry for that, but personally, I find that the killing of one of the perilously numbered mountain gorillas in Central Africa to be more akin to murder than the abortion of a human fetus.

And who says that we are special...besides ourselves?

[Baraka_Guru]

Originally Posted by Jozrael

I don't consider killing dogs, cats, parakeets, cows, pigs, horses, etc. murder.

I'll assume suffering aside. Shall I also assume you feel these "things" don't know terror and have no particular wish to live? And these animals have the intelligence of small children. Does that account for nothing?

[Jozrael]

I do feel those animals have a right to be free from torture, since I believe they're quite cognizant of pain. However, no, I don't believe they quite understand what it is to live. They have survival instincts...but they don't have a part of them going 'I'm going to die'.

[tisonlyi]

Latenter:

An honest statement based in materialism starts with an open, unbiased disposition. The next thing is the acquisition of or enquiry into the evidence in an open, unbiased manner, then you frame a narrative that fits the evidence which can then be torn apart by other people looking at the problem.

A dishonest statement based in materialism starts with a proposition, then cherry-picks and distorts evidence in order to fit the prejudices of the person who makes the statement, who then reacts defensively when the obvious flaws are pointed out.

Ok, so, before you even look at the evidence, you presuppose the existence of souls and that at some unseen and unexplained point, through some unseen and unexplained means, these unseen and unexplained souls are imparted upon a freshly fused set of gametes, and it's this unseen and unexplained soul imparting at this particular point that you've chosen in the absence of observation, measurement and means that justifies your special pleading for the cluster of cells that current society says it's perfectly fine to dispose of.

To sum up, your argument goes like this:

There is something material with things happening that obey the laws of nature, THEN A MIRACLE HAPPENS THAT YOU CAN'T SEE OR MEASURE, and then we have a new entity that must be treated in accordance with my set of baseless beliefs, simply because I assert that the miracle happened and other people think the same way.

See where I'm going here?

The fact that a lot of people hold the opinion that souls exist holds no weight whatsoever. A lot of people believe in ghosts, angels, pixies, demons and fairies but that doesn't mean they're right, or that we can/should start going out to justify their conditioned prejudices by trying to cherry-pick evidence.

So, to the point of honesty. If you want to use supernatural/religious beliefs (the existence of souls is a religious belief) to justify a position, then use the language of the supernatural/religion to do that. If you want to use materialist/scientific/empirical arguments to justify a position, then keep unseen, ill-defined, immeasureable ideas out of your thinking and reasoning.

I think I've laid out my position pretty well. Developed, full-grown human beings have absolute rights over their own bodies. At the point that foetuses start to have either sentience or a very good chance of developing sentience _without_ the unwilling assistance of the host, then the foetus starts to acquire rights. This is a process of accretion of rights, not absolutes. If society would like to give the foetus every chance of developing outside the womb and the woman does not want to give the foetus her means of developing, then it's perfectly reasonable to remove the foetus and use society's means - not the woman's means - to do that.

If society doesn't want to do that, then termination is acceptable up to the point that society is willing to do that.

That position, where foetuses start to gain rights, judging from my look at the evidence, starts at around 24-26 weeks. Up to that point, the woman has 100% rights to do whatever she wants.

You don't like me attacking your position? Tough luck.

Oh, and on the 'because its weak' labelling of my position, which is a total red herring, society already has plenty of rules and plenty of experience in the murder of members of Homo Sapiens outside the womb, but dependent on external resources for their continued existence.

Brain Death of coma patients = acceptable removal of support.

The heart still beats, the lungs might still function, the liver still serves as the factory of enzymes for the rest of the body, there are plenty of nerve cells, even massive complexity capable of supporting sentience, but that sentience and sapience cannot be seen.

A living human being, without sentience or sapience, is 'killed' by removal of support.

Embryos/foetuses up to 20 weeks barely possess organs, let alone functional organs with complex interplay that might support independent existence and prop up the capacity for an excess of brain that can support a sentient, conscious entity.

[Baraka_Guru]

Originally Posted by Jozrael

[...] However, no, I don't believe they quite understand what it is to live. They have survival instincts...but they don't have a part of them going 'I'm going to die'.

Neither does a fetus. But I disagree with you, anyway. I think the terror response in animals (especially the more intelligent ones) is similar to that of humans. I'm not saying they have concepts of an afterlife or moral virtue, but they do have a sense of life and death. They really want to live. They really don't want to die, and they fear situations where they think that might happen.

Terror can't be that much more or less "instinctual," "automatic," or otherwise "programmed" in other animals than it is in humans.

Regardless, I don't see an aborted fetus suffering anything like what a pig or cow goes through when it's being "prepared for market." It's not murder, technically. They aren't classified under law that way. But I can't see how it isn't a problem. If I were against abortion for the reason of it being murder, it would logically follow for me to adopt a strict vegetarian diet. Otherwise, I'd feel it would be an inconsistency to want to defend something like a fetus from going through that sort of procedure, all the while the meat I would be eating would be coming from animals that suffered a much more horrific fate.

I guess I'd be a Seventh-Day Adventist or a Buddhist or something.

[Latenter]

Originally Posted by tisonlyi

Latenter:Ok, so, before you even look at the evidence, you presuppose the existence of souls and that at some unseen and unexplained point, through some unseen and unexplained means, these unseen and unexplained souls are imparted upon a freshly fused set of gametes, and it's this unseen and unexplained soul imparting at this particular point that you've chosen in the absence of observation, measurement and means that justifies your special pleading for the cluster of cells that current society says it's perfectly fine to dispose of.

To sum up, your argument goes like this:

There is something material with things happening that obey the laws of nature, THEN A MIRACLE HAPPENS THAT YOU CAN'T SEE OR MEASURE, and then we have a new entity that must be treated in accordance with my set of baseless beliefs, simply because I assert that the miracle happened and other people think the same way.
...
So, to the point of honesty. If you want to use supernatural/religious beliefs (the existence of souls is a religious belief) to justify a position, then use the language of the supernatural/religion to do that. If you want to use materialist/scientific/empirical arguments to justify a position, then keep unseen, ill-defined, immeasureable ideas out of your thinking and reasoning.
...
That position, where foetuses start to gain rights, judging from my look at the evidence, starts at around 24-26 weeks. Up to that point, the woman has 100% rights to do whatever she wants.

You don't like me attacking your position? Tough luck.

GAH! This post is the same as your last. I think you skimmed mine again. I'M NOT ARGUING ABOUT SOULS! Yes, as a human being, I am biased toward humans. I don't claim not to be. The same way that I would be biased in favor of my favorite sports team, or my company in a negotiation, or my country in a war. You can claim to follow cold hard materialism, throw out all the rules, reevaluate everything society has decided. Fine. That's your stance. Not everyone agrees.

You mention sentience. How is that defined, exactly? Is there a pass/fail test for people who are near that line? If someone's suffered brain damage, but is still partially awake, could a man who can eat and look around maybe even recognize people be classified as non-sentient for otherwise lacking certain characteristics? It's a concept, not a definition.

I haven't mentioned religion once. I mentioned souls as a way to describe an innate value of human life that we don't apply to animals. You can disagree, but it's disagreement with the value I put on life, not that I'm a psycho-moonie-crazy person.

I'm fine with you attacking my argument, but you're not. You're creating a straw man and saying that's my argument. You've made your point, I've made mine, neither of us is changing our minds based on what the other has said. I think I'm done debating these points.

[Hyacinthe]

I am going to bring a bit of a unique viewpoint to this and one that some of you will probably not appreciate because thus far from reading this I am the only person who is responding having been in a situation where I was forced to consider having an abortion.

When I was 15 I was a victim of sexual abuse - in blunt terms I was raped. I had not been on birth control prior to the incident as I was not sexually active and those of you that work in medicine or look at the facts know that the morning after pill which is what I was given in the emergency room is not 100% effective.

There is no way in the world I could have carried any child that could have resulted from that to term.

I cried pretty much every day, every time I looked at myself I felt ill thinking that I might have been infested with some parasite that was fathered by those men / boys. That's honestly how I felt about it, to me it wasn't a child it was a parasite, it was the ends of all my hopes for life, if I had been pregnant I would most likely have been kicked out of school (I went to a religiously based school) and I would have major problems going back and doing anything that I had planned for my life with a young child in tow.

If I had been pregnant from that attack every day would be like living the act over again. Would I have gotten an abortion - without a second thought. You can tell me that child has every right to live and that it is just as important as I am and I will admit a big part of me agrees with you but I would have still gone and done it anyway and I still would today.

I know that the situations you're looking at are meant to be in regards to something else other then health and rape related circumstances but put yourself in the shoes of a 14 - 17 yr old girl. In that one positive result you give up a large chunk of your social life (very few people at that age are able to handle that happening to a friend and understanding that no their friend can't go out with them anymore) usually your university or other tertiary study plans for the next few years, perhaps your job and lets not forget the man that you're CERTAIN you're in love with and that you honestly thought loved you - that's with a supportive family to help support the two of you. You're terrified and no matter who else is around you you feel completely alone.

In those circumstances I can see too many yound mothers brining up children that every time they look at they think "there goes my future" and no matter what you say about mothers loving their children it doesn't necessarily happen, just look at the last 6 months in the news. There are enough unloved children in the world without creating more.

After having made that decision and facing a part of me that I don't like very much I find I can't judge anyone else on making a similar decision for their own individual reasons.


****

What I think and I believe and how I act is no one's business unless it hurts or affects them. What someone else believes or does with their body and its issue or potential issue is NONE OF MY BUSINESS. I don't have to like it, I don't have to approve. Pro Lifers - get out your bibles or what have you - Right or wrong - we have one thing NO ONE should be able to take away from us. FREE WILL. You do not and should not control me, Nor should I you when it concerns the one thing in life that is our own to control. our own body.

Midnight - Abortion Page 5, 2007

Now this I believe is a key issue - those of you saying that abortion is wrong are imposing your beliefs on others.

Those who are saying abortion should be allowed are not.

Before you jump up and down let me explain those statements:

By denying the right to abortion you are forcing people to have children, abortionists are not saying you must have an abortion they are saying that the option should be there, alot of them partially because they understand that people will get desperate and once again it will go back to the days of coat hangers or bicycle spokes in backyard clinics.

Abortion is not an easy thing to confront and I definitely believe in most situations the father should be consulted, I have friends who have had children they never knew about aborted and only found out after the fact, in every single case the guy in question would have made a wonderful father and now even 10 years onwards in some cases feel that loss keenly.

****


On another personal note I am interested to see a topic such as this come up when it should be obvious to anyone that this is one of those fundamental issues that you will never get everyone to agree on. I'd like to offer a big congratulations and thankyou to everyone taking part cause as yet I have not seen a single post that has been purposefully argumentative or offensive or has degenerated into personal attacks.

[tisonlyi]

Originally Posted by Latenter

GAH! This post is the same as your last. I think you skimmed mine again. I'M NOT ARGUING ABOUT SOULS! Yes, as a human being, I am biased toward humans. I don't claim not to be. The same way that I would be biased in favor of my favorite sports team, or my company in a negotiation, or my country in a war. You can claim to follow cold hard materialism, throw out all the rules, reevaluate everything society has decided. Fine. That's your stance. Not everyone agrees.

You mention sentience. How is that defined, exactly? Is there a pass/fail test for people who are near that line? If someone's suffered brain damage, but is still partially awake, could a man who can eat and look around maybe even recognize people be classified as non-sentient for otherwise lacking certain characteristics? It's a concept, not a definition.

I haven't mentioned religion once. I mentioned souls as a way to describe an innate value of human life that we don't apply to animals. You can disagree, but it's disagreement with the value I put on life, not that I'm a psycho-moonie-crazy person.

I'm fine with you attacking my argument, but you're not. You're creating a straw man and saying that's my argument. You've made your point, I've made mine, neither of us is changing our minds based on what the other has said. I think I'm done debating these points.

"Fundamentally, yes, I am discussing the "imparting of a soul", but on grounds that are not religious, and you don't even need to believe in a soul to agree with the argument. If you are being so impartial as to rank someone based on the number of synapses firing per second, fine, but that doesn't reflect our society at all. There are intrinsic elements and rights that we grant to human beings, ignoring history or race or disability."

You make the assertion of soul (But! but! but!) as soon as you do that, you've thrown your lot in something immaterial. It's perfectly justified to position your argument on that and respond to it as though you've taken a step into another world, which you effectively have.

If you want to talk about sentience, but in the same breath make comparisons of full grown adults, disabled or not, to clusters of cells that have the first rudiments of a nervous system, but nothing that you could actually describe as a nervous system... in the same way a jellyfish has nerves but no nervous system... well that's just odd.

If you want to think about sentience and vialibility, then do you care to give some animal kingdom examples, or are you claiming DNA-privilege? What type of behaviour would an entity have to demonstrate to show sentience in your opinion?

You're the one positing a 2-week old embryo as in some way privileged, so i think it's up to you to justify.

And as for "cold hard materialism" i think materialism, fully grasped, is incredibly warm and beautiful. I'm an atheist, materialist with no hope for anything but for my life to end as and when it will. That doesn't make me 'cold' in any way.

[FelixP]

Originally Posted by squeeeb

i'm the one guy who says its wrong, i'm against abortion. if you don't want the kid, have it and sell it, give it up for adoption, whatever. just because it is a fetus and cant talk or breathe quite yet does not make it "not a person," in my opinion. it is a living thing, therefore killing it would be murder. yes, i'm kinda also against birth control because the morning after pill is technically an abortion. (oddly, i'm all for condoms and masturbation, even though bazillions of sperms die.)

does anyone have accurate statistics on how many children are born because of rape? i dont think it is that many, and i don't see it as a good reason to have an abortion. being raped is horrible, but have the kid and sell it and use the money for counseling. don't kill a human because something shitty happened to you.

the ONLY way i could justify abortion is if having the baby would absolutely 100% kill the mother, and that is more rare than a female willing to talk to me. sadly, abortion, like anything else humans want to do, will be done whether it's legal or not.

how about we make abortion illegal in the US, and instead of abortion clinics, we have abortion travel agencies that will book you a round trip flight, stay, and abortion in china?

---------- Post added at 06:01 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:57 PM ----------



it IS the woman's body that is affected. it's also the living thing inside that woman's body that is affected. i'm not saying you (the collective you, not genuinegirly you) cant have an abortion cause you are merely a woman, i'm saying you cant have an abortion cause the human inside you who cant speak should be taken into account. if i didn't believe the fetus is a living human being, i wouldn't be against it.

I tend to agree with most of squeeb's major points. It is not just the woman's body. It is also the child's. I'm not totally sure how I feel about the morning after pill, but anything after the first trimester is murder. The minute a woman opens her legs she has to open her mind to the possibility of getting pregnant. The man should get a say, because it is also his child. The woman did not concieve by herself. She had some help. My parents had countless court battles concerning custody of myself; why should an unborn baby be any different? That'd be like if my parents got together, came to the realization that I was socially and financially inconvenient, and consequently decided to shoot me and throw my dumbass in the river.

I never really understood the whole "Rape makes it okay." argument. My father and stepmother were abusive, but that doesn't mean that if I have kids some day I'm going to treat them like shit. Just because someone fucks you up doesn't give you the right to fuck up someone else.

[levite]

Can I just say, directly, that I think that it would be worth our collective whiles to thank Hyacinthe for her post; not just because that's the first opinion we've heard from someone actually on the front lines of the issue, but also because that can't have been an easy story to relate.

Thanks, Hyacinthe. That was well-spoken, and very brave.