Abortion

[Decepticon]

If you do not agree that murder of the innocent is always wrong, there is nothing else to discuss. I reckon most individuals would not disagree with that statement, though.

Your "most-individuals" phrase is appeal to authority.

I think we DO have something to discuss, something a LOT more interesting than the first pages.

Begaster, given my position as a non-cognitivist/emotivist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emotivism), question becomes: when do you FEEL that killing an unborn is wrong TO YOU, and WHY do you feel that way.

Then we might be on the trail of the REAL REASON

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[shmrshines]

It's because some women see abortion as birth control, sadly...

ok, that's just wrong and stupid, but then I guess you have to take into account that some are just may not be properly educated or highly immature.

 

[shmrshines]

I'm ok with it in the early first trimester, because I don't believe that the soul is there yet, but 4th and 5th month abortions I have a hard time with. I don't think I could ever get an abortion myself though.

 

[shmrshines]

To tell you the truth, it seems to me that life never really begins at all, just continues (now anyway). After all, the egg is alive, the sperm is alive, when they join the mechanism of life does not stop or start ... just continues. Heck, even with humans it is the maternal genes that are expressed even through the first few divisions. The sperm genome isn't activated immediately. So does this mean that the real individual does not begin until after both pronuclei are united and the embryonic transcriptional machinery begins after a few divisions? Just some interesting pondering.

interesting indeed. I like this type of thinking, your someone who is actually looking at the science of it and not just purging information that was given to them.

 

[foster033]

Humans have a soul; animals do not.

Do you believe only in things science can prove? Apparently so.

I don't necessarily believe in things that can only be proven...but I also wouldn't base a logical argument off of something that wasn't rooted in fact. Faith is tricky b/c it's not the same for any 2 people so using it to convince someone else what you believe doesn't really work.

 

[foster033]

I would like to make a request of both sides of the abortion argument, it goes something like this:

Abortion isn't about murder, and it's not about choice. The only relevant question in the debate is when you believe something is alive, an individual, a human, or whatever word you want to use.

Does a pro-choice individual believe murder is wrong? Of course, they just don't consider the aborted fetus to be a person (or whatever term best fits).

I am definitely pro-choice but I sort of have to disagree with this. Even if the fetus is considered a human (I actually don't know if I believe that or not) I don't think it's wrong to abort it. That probably makes me a bad person, but I really do think it's the mothers decision whether or not she wants to bring a child into the world and needs to base that decision on what is right for her. Maybe it's selfish, but only she can know that and so it should be her decision.

 

[calnation]

Ethically, I find abortion to be immoral. But ultimately I believe in individual freedom and I believe people should have the choice in whether or not they want to have a child.

What I think we should do is restrict the abortion window to a really short time period. Like 1 month. Seriously, if someone's gonna have an abortion they better get on that s**t fast. It's horrible to imagine human fetuses that have fingernails being discarded.

 

[Decicco]

what does "do you believe in" mean? seriously.

 

[foster033]

Ethically, I find abortion to be immoral. But ultimately I believe in individual freedom and I believe people should have the choice in whether or not they want to have a child.

What I think we should do is restrict the abortion window to a really short time period. Like 1 month. Seriously, if someone's gonna have an abortion they better get on that s**t fast. It's horrible to imagine human fetuses that have fingernails being discarded.

Problem with that is that you can't always tell when you're pregnant. Many women have irregular periods so it's not always possible to tell by missing it. On the other end some women will continue to have bleeding during their pregnancy.

 

[MedStudentWanna]

The only problem I have with the bolded statement is that you are deciding someone elses worth on life...namely, the fetus....I personally feel that no one has a right to decide someone elses claim to life even if you are doing so b/c you think you are doing that person a favor....that same mentality doesnt work for kids/adults so I dont think it should work for fetuses

That's not true. Parents and spouses always choose whether or not to pull the plug on kids or adults who are hooked up to machines.

 

[Maxwell Edison]

I am definitely pro-choice but I sort of have to disagree with this. Even if the fetus is considered a human (I actually don't know if I believe that or not) I don't think it's wrong to abort it. That probably makes me a bad person, but I really do think it's the mothers decision whether or not she wants to bring a child into the world and needs to base that decision on what is right for her. Maybe it's selfish, but only she can know that and so it should be her decision.

I think that if you accept that fetuses are humans, it is unacceptable to "kill" them. It is not OK in any other circumstance to terminate the life of someone who depends on you because you don't want to handle the responsibility anymore.

 

[OldSchooler]

.

 

[rockydoc]

That's not true. Parents and spouses always choose whether or not to pull the plug on kids or adults who are hooked up to machines.

good point but I think the difference is that in one case, the person is dying, and in the other, the person is beginning life.....in my opinion, the two arent congruent....again, it goes back to denying someone a "future like ours"......you arent denying someone that if they are already in the process of dying....It isnt like we can choose to say a kid/adult will have a crappy life (when they are otherwise healthy) and then kill them....that was my point

 

[calnation]

Problem with that is that you can't always tell when you're pregnant. Many women have irregular periods so it's not always possible to tell by missing it. On the other end some women will continue to have bleeding during their pregnancy.

That's very true, but if the law were to be that strict, I'd like to think people would be more inclined to check for pregnancy after having unprotected sex.

I mean, if I were a girl, and I had unprotected sex, with a guy with whom I didn't want to have a baby, I'd be neurotically checking myself for pregnancy.
We already hand out free pregnancy tests. Maybe we should develop and publicize that.

 

[majahops]

Like it or not, abortion is a necessary evil. Upon thoughtful and non-religious (aka fairytale-based) analysis, that's just the conclusion a reasonable person comes to.

It sucks. Abortion is TERRIBLE! We should feel ashamed and grossly careless and irresponsible (in most cases) if we end up doing it...

... but still, it is a necessary evil.

 

[Decepticon]

I am definitely pro-choice but I sort of have to disagree with this. Even if the fetus is considered a human (I actually don't know if I believe that or not) I don't think it's wrong to abort it. That probably makes me a bad person, but I really do think it's the mothers decision whether or not she wants to bring a child into the world and needs to base that decision on what is right for her. Maybe it's selfish, but only she can know that and so it should be her decision.

On a personal side note- you might not be a nice doc towards the fetus, but from this and other posts I have read, you would have a good foundation to be a doctor I wouldn't have problems talking to as a patient. Thumbs up.

 

[bcat85]

I tend to think that the level of support that the woman supplies for the fetus does not detract from its individuality. There is no variance in the physical genome of the child throughout its development, and although it evolves more complexity as it progresses through its life history, it is still a human being independent of its mother in the sense that it is genetically distinct. The mother should act as a surrogate protecting the child's autonomy by making the decision that the child would most likely make as a rational adult human being. The likelihood that the child would "choose" to be aborted in the event it had rational autonomy is virtually nil.

EDIT: I must add that I, personally, have religions objections to abortion, but it would be inappropriate to attempt to legislate my religious beliefs, and thus I chose to present a more secular ethical argument that won't turn into a "GOD! YOU BELIEVE IN GOD!?" debate.

 

[PainKiller69]

Let's blow up 50% of the worlds population. (necc. evil)

 

[Decepticon]

I have just a side remark.

If the mother is allowed to end the fetus' parasitic presence in the womb, who has the right over the ensuing dead fetus? If it belongs to the mother, can she take it home and eat it?

 

[Omyss]

IMO the early fetus is not on the same level as human life as we know it; it lacks all the major marks of human life such as sentience, ablity to feel pain, a conception of the significance of its own life and so on... Really, in its primitive stages its just a collection of cells and in no way would "killing it" equate to murder in my mind. I have more issues with killing animals for food (even tho i'm not a vegan) than i do for killing early-in-devlopment fetuses. And even in that case, i can morally justify my eating of animals.

OFcourse after a certain point in development, killing the developing fetus because somewhat more ethically dubious ... namely when the pain receptors start to develop. At this point i'm would probably not do an abortion.

Also you ahve to consider the fact that forcing a woman to have a baby when she is potentially neither mentally or economically prepared to is wrong... and not only would this forced concpetion likely negatively impact her life, but it would also negatively impact the life of the child-to-be when it MATTERS since the child would be raised in possibly abusive/hostile environment and may not get the appropriate care that in needs in its childhood.

Sacrificing the rights of the woman in favour of a primative fetus (which lacks major marks of human life) is wrong.

 

[calnation]

My whole view on abortion changed when I saw the fetus exhibit at Body Worlds. Basically the exhibit was a collection of human fetuses at different stages in their development (i.e. 1 week, 2 weeks, 4 weeks etc). Before that I had just imagined a pretty non-distinguishable blob for like 6 months until eventually a baby formed. Haha.

I think every middle schooler that is taking sex ed. should have to view something like that. It really helps to really get the perspective.

 

[foster033]

I think that if you accept that fetuses are humans, it is unacceptable to "kill" them. It is not OK in any other circumstance to terminate the life of someone who depends on you because you don't want to handle the responsibility anymore.

For the record this is a hypothetical, I'm not saying I believe a fetus is a human or that anyone should or should not, just trying to bring the true issues into discussion.

The problem with your reply, is that IF you believe the fetus is a human (as per your hypothetical), than she already HAS brought the child into the world. That choice is over, now the choice is to terminate that life or not. It all comes back to what you believe the nature of the fetus is.



Edit- if you believe that the fetus is alive, killing it inside the womb is no different than killing it after birth.

There is an ethical argument about a violinist by Thomson (search: violinist abortion) that makes a lot of sense to me..
the mother is not necessarily killing the baby she's simply not allowing the baby to live inside of her...she's expressing her rights to control her own body, that the fetus dies is a consequence of this.

 

[foster033]

On a personal side note- you might not be a nice doc towards the fetus, but from this and other posts I have read, you would have a good foundation to be a doctor I wouldn't have problems talking to as a patient. Thumbs up.

Thanks, that's really nice of you to say.

 

[Maxwell Edison]

IMO the early fetus is not on the same level as human life as we know it; it lacks all the major marks of human life such as sentience, ablity to feel pain, a conception of the significance of its own life and so on... Really, in its primitive stages its just a collection of cells and in no way would "killing it" equate to murder in my mind. I have more issues with killing animals for food (even tho i'm not a vegan) than i do for killing early-in-devlopment fetuses. And even in that case, i can morally justify my eating of animals.

OFcourse after a certain point in development, killing the developing fetus because somewhat more ethically dubious ... namely when the pain receptors start to develop. At this point i'm would probably not do an abortion.

Also you ahve to consider the fact that forcing a woman to have a baby when she is potentially neither mentally or economically prepared to is wrong... and not only would this forced concpetion likely negatively impact her life, but it would also negatively impact the life of the child-to-be when it MATTERS since the child would be raised in possibly abusive/hostile environment and may not get the appropriate care that in needs in its childhood.

Sacrificing the rights of the woman in favour of a primative fetus (which lacks major marks of human life) is wrong.

Your concepts of what divides human life and nothingness is a bit ridiculous; really, do pain receptors make a cellular mass a human? Nociception and awareness are indeed elements of human life, but vegetative individuals are still considered human in spite of the absence of these characteristics.

Furthermore, what "rights" are sacrificed by bearing a fetus?

 

[MedStudentWanna]

good point but I think the difference is that in one case, the person is dying, and in the other, the person is beginning life.....in my opinion, the two arent congruent....again, it goes back to denying someone a "future like ours"......you arent denying someone that if they are already in the process of dying....It isnt like we can choose to say a kid/adult will have a crappy life (when they are otherwise healthy) and then kill them....that was my point

But most of the time, the person isn't dying. Look at Terry Shaivo. She wasn't dying. She just wasn't getting any better and her husband made the decision that her life wasn't worth living, despite the objection by her parents. Like I said, it happens all the time.

 

[foster033]

Furthermore, what "rights" are sacrificed by bearing a fetus?

Plenty...women are forced to give up certain aspects of their lives in order to have children...different diet, different exercise routines, travel restrictions, take time off work....etc.

You can say that by getting pregnant they are forfeiting these rights but that's really not fair...it's not like every time you have sex you are doing it with the intentions that you might become pregnant, humans also have sex for pleasure...
many people have no intentions of ever having a child, should this mean that they are not allowed to have sex?

 

[OldSchooler]

.

 

[foster033]

That's very true, but if the law were to be that strict, I'd like to think people would be more inclined to check for pregnancy after having unprotected sex.

I mean, if I were a girl, and I had unprotected sex, with a guy with whom I didn't want to have a baby, I'd be neurotically checking myself for pregnancy.
We already hand out free pregnancy tests. Maybe we should develop and publicize that.

I understand where you're coming from but again, pregnancies aren't always a result of unprotected sex...

I do agree though about publicizing free pregnancy test...the more education the better.

 

[rockydoc]

There is an ethical argument about a violinist by Thomson (search: violinist abortion) that makes a lot of sense to me..
the mother is not necessarily killing the baby she's simply not allowing the baby to live inside of her...she's expressing her rights to control her own body, that the fetus dies is a consequence of this.

Judith Jarvis Thomson's "ailing violinist analogy" has already been mentioned on this thread.....and by the way, if you research it more, there are several pro-choicers who denounce her argument b/c it does have some flaws....

 

[Maxwell Edison]

There is an ethical argument about a violinist by Thomson (search: violinist abortion) that makes a lot of sense to me..
the mother is not necessarily killing the baby she's simply not allowing the baby to live inside of her...she's expressing her rights to control her own body, that the fetus dies is a consequence of this.

The violinist argument is flawed because it suggests that the person has been conscripted into the scenario against their will. To say this is not the scenario in pregnancy is understatement.

Second, Thompson's argument is something of a cop-out. To say, "I'm not killing it, I'm just not letting it live" is jive; the result is the same. You cannot deny that by refusing the right to live inside a woman the fetus is going to die, and that your decision is the instrument of destruction. In the instance with the violinist, termination may be deemed acceptable because there was no consent given.

 

[rockydoc]

But most of the time, the person isn't dying. Look at Terry Shaivo. She wasn't dying. She just wasn't getting any better and her husband made the decision that her life wasn't worth living, despite the objection by her parents. Like I said, it happens all the time.

Im pretty sure that Terry Shaivo stuff doesnt happen much.....and for sure not "all the time" as you say....i definitely view that case as morally wrong as well.

 

[HurricaneKatt]

I could never have an abortion myself because I have such strong maternal instincts. As for other women? Well....I definitely agree that it depends on the individual case, but then, who decides which case is valid and which is not? What standards are used? It's not for me to say what a woman does, though I hope that I am never faced with helping a patient have an abortion - I'm not sure if I could do it or not...I would refer them elsewhere more than likely.
If we outlaw abortion, it will continue to happen anyways, and an abortion done properly in a clinic is Much better than a coat hanger in a back alley, no?
What I don't understand is, why not give the baby up to an adoption agency so that some infertile couple who disparately want children can have a chance at parenthood?
A woman at a clinic (I do not remember where this was) had six abortions. At this point it becomes more frivolous than anything. Should there be a limit? And if so then what?
A child born to a rape victim could possibly be subject to abuse and neglect, as a few of you mentioned. This child could a) become stronger from living a hard life and try to make themselves a better person b)commit suicide or c) grow up to become another street runner, or even a rapist themselves adding to the violence and crime levels d) who knows? Should the child be given a chance even though the chances are they will not lead or make a good quality life? At least it's a life?

Here's another scenario for u guys. A woman is pregnant and has just learned that her fetus will have some mentally or physically crippling disorder, down syndrome, cerebral palsy, spina bifida, etc. Should the woman be allowed to have an abortion? What if they are incapable of caring for a handicapped child? What if they are unwilling? What about the fetus - will abortion spare it from having a poor-quality life? Or simply take away its chance to have a life?

There's a lot to take into consideration....

 

[foster033]

That's a nice exercise in semantics, but not allowing a baby to live is the same as killing it.
By that line of thinking leaving a newborn on the street isn't killing it either.

Again, for the record, this isn't a pro-life argument, I just want people to argue the real topic, not choice/murder.

To you choice/murder might not be the real topic, but to a lot of people it is...

It might just be semantics to you but I still think it's valid...

there is a difference between not allowing something to literally live off of your body like a parasite and to not provide support to a child that is living and breathing on their own.

 

[halekulani]

definitely pro-choice without a doubt

 

[tiedyeddog]

but vegetative individuals are still considered human in spite of the absence of these characteristics.

That depends on who you ask.

 

[majahops]

This isn't an "ethical" debate. If we decide it's a life, we're killing a life. If we decide it's not a life, we're not killing a life. That's all there is to it.

We raise and force the mass-reproduction of animals everyday for the sole purpose of murdering and eating them. If one of them gets a certain disease that we think MIGHT be a threat to human beings, we annihilate hundreds of thousands of them without a second thought.

Why do people need to get so philosophical about these things? Abortion is clearly wrong. We don't need Socrates or Plato to illuminate that for us.

We do things. We have to live with them. Abortion sucks. Its abhorrent, but it's one of the things we've always done and we will always do. We should focus our attention on reducing the frequency of the felt-need to do it.

 

[rockydoc]

The violinist argument is flawed because it suggests that the person has been conscripted into the scenario against their will. To say this is not the scenario in pregnancy is understatement.

Second, Thompson's argument is something of a cop-out. To say, "I'm not killing it, I'm just not letting it live" is jive; the result is the same. You cannot deny that by refusing the right to live inside a woman the fetus is going to die, and that your decision is the instrument of destruction. In the instance with the violinist, termination may be deemed acceptable because there was no consent given.

Exactly, her argument really only holds ground in the case of rape (utterly against one's will)
And to say that a fetus has a "right to life" but not a "right to assistance" is just funny to me....in the case of the fetus, its life IS assistance....how can somone's only right (right to life) become completely null because it doesnt have a right to assistance......it would be easier to just say that it doesnt have any rights at all and end it there.....Thomson runs in circles

 

[Maxwell Edison]

Plenty...women are forced to give up certain aspects of their lives in order to have children...different diet, different exercise routines, travel restrictions, take time off work....etc.

Whether or not you want to deem these things as rights or not is fine (I thought I remember an argument with you on the 9th amendment a while back where you were taking the opposite position on something else) but irrelevant. People's rights to diet et al. will always be secondary to the rights of others to continue existing.

 

[pearl158]

Plenty...women are forced to give up certain aspects of their lives in order to have children...different diet, different exercise routines, travel restrictions, take time off work....etc.

You can say that by getting pregnant they are forfeiting these rights but that's really not fair...it's not like every time you have sex you are doing it with the intentions that you might become pregnant, humans also have sex for pleasure...
many people have no intentions of ever having a child, should this mean that they are not allowed to have sex?

I thought this was an interesting article: http://jezebel.com/5030801/having-kids-sometimes-the-answer-is-just-no

 

[majahops]

"Rights" are a man made concept and they are defined differently across societies. "Right" is also a man made concept, but one that tends to be a bit more universal. If we worry about doing the "Right" thing and stop hiding behind the guise of protecting peoples' "rights," I feel that we can be a more universally ethical people.

Whether or not you want to deem these things as rights or not is fine (I thought I remember an argument with you on the 9th amendment a while back where you were taking the opposite position on something else) but irrelevant. People's rights to diet et al. will always be secondary to the rights of others to continue existing.

 

[foster033]

Judith Jarvis Thomson's "ailing violinist analogy" has already been mentioned on this thread.....and by the way, if you research it more, there are several pro-choicers who denounce her argument b/c it does have some flaws....

I'm sure there are...few arguments are perfect, or we wouldn't be having this discussion...I was just using it as an example.

The violinist argument is flawed because it suggests that the person has been conscripted into the scenario against their will. To say this is not the scenario in pregnancy is understatement.

Just because a women is pregnant does not mean she willed it to happen...see above post.

Second, Thompson's argument is something of a cop-out. To say, "I'm not killing it, I'm just not letting it live" is jive; the result is the same. You cannot deny that by refusing the right to live inside a woman the fetus is going to die, and that your decision is the instrument of destruction. In the instance with the violinist, termination may be deemed acceptable because there was no consent given.

I'm not denying that the fetus is going to die or that your decision is the cause of it, but it's I don't think it's the woman is obligated to let the baby use her body in order to survive...
having sex is not a consent for pregnancy...

 

[OldSchooler]

.

 

[Omyss]

Your concepts of what divides human life and nothingness is a bit ridiculous; really, do pain receptors make a cellular mass a human? Nociception and awareness are indeed elements of human life, but vegetative individuals are still considered human in spite of the absence of these characteristics.

Furthermore, what "rights" are sacrificed by bearing a fetus?

No, pain receptors on their OWN don't make a cell mass human... just like an animal isn't a human. The COMBINATION of the ability to SUFFER physicallyl and psychologically, sentience, awareness of ones own significance and so on, is what distinguishes a human from a mass of cells, or animals for that matter. A fetus lacks all of the above prior to the development of pain receptors, and thus i don't consider it a human nor do i value its "life". Thus I have no moral issues with destroying it.


Forcing a woman to conceive a child will expose her to physicaly pain, emotional drain, and financial burden... all at time when she may not be mentally and economically ready for one. Thus she would have to make many sacrifices in order to care for the child, which would add to her frustration. And why should she have to go through all this for the sake of a mass of cells ?

 

[OldSchooler]

.

 

[foster033]

I thought this was an interesting article: http://jezebel.com/5030801/having-kids-sometimes-the-answer-is-just-no

not wanting kids at all is different from not wanting kids right now

 

[majahops]

To "believe" or "not believe" that something is a "real human" is the same as believing or not believing that person x is the "next coming of Christ" - it is a judgement based on an originally man-made concept. "Real human" is irrelevant.

The question is, do we think we are robbing the opportunity to see a mother's face and walk the green earth, do we think we are hurting feelings... do we think we are serving the greater good by doing what we decide to do? And most importantly, can we continue to live comfortably with our decision?

I'm not trying to be mean, but I really think you're missing the point, which may be my fault.

Let me clarify, there are many people who believe that a fetus is a real human just like an adult. I'm not one of them, you may not be either, but we cannot totally dismiss their view. Try to imagine you believe that way, why would aborting a fetus be any different from killing a new born by neglect? That question is not rhetorical, someone who holds your view must have an answer for it. I don't think it would, and so do most people who believe that a fetus is alive.

And I'm sorry, killing something, and letting something die due to a choice we make is the same thing. Differentiating between the two is nothing more than semantic argument and is of no consequence to the debate. That's the exact kind of argument that detracts from the real issues.

Again for the record, I am pro-choice, I just think flawed arguments on my own side hurt my stance more than arguments from the other side.

 

[DrSno]

Humans have a soul; animals do not.

Just because you say that and hope it's true doesn't make it true.

To any rational person here: If someone disagrees that humans are animals, there is no point in further discussing the topic with them.

 

[OldSchooler]

.

 

[decafplease]

Just because a women is pregnant does not mean she willed it to happen...
having sex is not a consent for pregnancy...

Ummm. If someone base-jumps, are they consenting to death? Do they know it's a risk? Is anyone surprised when it happens?

 

[majahops]

On the one hand ROGER that... but on the other hand... it doesn't matter than humans are animals. We know animals have feelings. Try hanging out with a pig for a day. They have thoughts, desires, feelings, fears... the whole 9....

so let's say humans aren't animals, just for the sake of it. So what? Animals are animals. that's enough reason to respect them.

Just because you say that and hope it's true doesn't make it true.

To any rational person here: If someone disagrees that humans are animals, there is no point in further discussing the topic with them.