Abortion....why?

[Moonlight Butterfly]

A lot of people see it as a form of control over women, to keep them out of the workforce and tied down with children.

That is why conservative people really don't like abortion don't let them tell you otherwise.

Women should have complete control over there bodies and their lives they shouldn't be dictated to by anyone. I'm certainly not going to be.

 

[WeAreStevo]

I hope every baby Christian pro-lifers save grows up to be gay and/or transgendered.

I always wondered that.

What if the child who was "saved" through outlawing abortion was severely beaten, put into child prostitution, starved or became a serial killer?

Would they still view it as a benefit? I hate to admit it, but I've trolled some Christians hardcore with that line when they have the gall to tell me "those babies could have been the next brilliant leader of the free world, scientist, doctor etc."

 

[Sir Rammington Steel]

Well time to be a bit of a wrench. I'm not a Christian, though I do believe in god(s). While I am pro-choice, I do not like the idea of abortion. I've always felt like it should be reserved for rape or incest related incidents. On the other hand if you knock up your girlfriend during consensual sex then I don't feel as if you should have any right to an abortion. Sure it's not a fully formed person yet, but it's on the way to being one. A part of me hates the idea of ending a life without it even having a chance, that happens naturally enough already. No need for us to help it along.

 

[Athinira]

But why harm an innocent party that did nothing in the matter?

Because a fetus isn't an 'innocent party'. Or rather, it's not a 'party' at all.

By that logic, anything that can be said to be part of the creation of a child can be considered an 'innocent party'. For example would masturbation also be the act of killing an 'innocent party', because you could argue that this particular ejaculation could have conceived a child instead.

So with the logic that a child is a 'party' the moment it is conceived dismissed, how else can we define when a child can be considered a party?

Some other people like to define a being as a 'party' when the being is sentient (in the sense that it can feel pain). Scientific research shows that unborn fetuses are capable of reacting to many different things at a very early stage (around end of first trimester), including touch, temperature and light. So around that time (which in many countries is the latest time a women is allowed to have an abortion, unless extraordinary circumstances are present like rape, the girl being underage or in danger of losing her life because of the pregnancy). So by that definition, the child becomes a 'party' around the third month of the pregnancy.

The problem with that logic, however, is that it doesn't make much sense either. Why? Because even at the end of the first trimester, a baby is (for all intends and purposes), still less sentient than an animal, and since we humans typically have no qualms with killing animals (PETA members excluded), which as we know is not only perfectly capable of feeling pain, but also fear (which a fetus can't), then giving a fetus higher protective status than any animal we kill doesn't make any sense either. Even if a 'fetus' is able to (instinctively) react to pain, including the process of ending it's life before it's born, it's still more cruel to kill an animal if the ability to feel pain is the deciding factor. Cruelty, if we are to go by Wikipedias definition, is "...indifference to suffering, and even positive pleasure in inflicting it", and a fetus being aborted suffers less than an animal being killed, especially if it's part of hunting. You don't see religious anti-abortion people make demonstrations against hunting animals for sports now do you?

.

So now, with the "logical" arguments against abortion dismissed, lets talk ethical arguments instead. You see, there is plenty of people who would take issue with my last two paragraphs, and say that killing and eating animals is "just how the food chain works", and killing a baby (even if unborn) is 'inhumane'. Even if it doesn't make logically sense, to them it makes ethical sense.

Now, that isn't anything wrong with that opinion. It's perfectly fine to base your opinion on an ethical standpoint rather than a logical one. The problem in this case, however, is that this idea still fails to stand up to logic.

The world in it's current state is facing several problems, one of them being overpopulation, a problem that has been growing rapidly in recent years. We recently reached the 7th billion citizen on earth, and it's still growing. The seas are also being rapidly harvested for fish, with several species already being threatened with extinction (which, in turn, threatens our food supply since they are one of our food sources).

Now consider the personal problems involved for a woman who is pregnant with a baby she doesn't want. Not only does this severely hamper her ability to work and contribute to society, but it also throws her own life into a worse state of balance. This is especially true for poor countries, where the woman might not be able to feed the child, which then dies of hunger.

If humans are to stay on top of the food chain and be able to survive as a species, we have to control ourself and our growth. In China, it has come so far that they are doing FORCED abortions on women that have more than two children (which i don't support in any way, but i wanted to mention it as an example of how serious the overpopulation problem is).

Bottom line is that prohibiting abortion is going to lead to a mass increase in the following problems:
- Children getting left (or possibly murdered) by their mothers because they can't care for them
- Children dying of hunger, because their mothers can't care for them
- Overpopulation being an even worse problem than it already is. The consequences for this is eventually going to be rather extreme as our resources are depleting.
- Women, who can't handle an extra child, breaking down (and their life along with them), which means they can't contribute properly to society.

I'm sure we can both agree that logically (and ethically), children being left to death by their mothers or dying of hunger, as well as the future welfare of our entire species, is far more serious problems than the ethical problems involved in abortion. Those simply take priority.

 

[BlueMage]

It's not a Christian cause. I'm not Christian. I oppose abortion.

It comes down to the following basic concepts:

1. A born child is alive
2. At some point in the womb, that child is considered alive
3. We cannot accurately define that point
4. Therefore, we err on the side of life and do not abort.

Incidentally, an utter prick of an Objectivist pointed that out to me. I was forced to realise he was right. I was, prior to that, pro-abortion. The only time I can conscience abortion now is when there is a high risk of death to the mother.

 

[Grospoliner]

It makes the religious people feel useful in a world that is, increasingly, leaving them behind.

 

[Athinira]

It's not a Christian cause. I'm not Christian. I oppose abortion.

It comes down to the following basic concepts:

1. A born child is alive
2. At some point in the womb, that child is considered alive
3. We cannot accurately define that point
4. Therefore, we err on the side of life and do not abort.

Incorrect. We are perfectly capable of measuring when a fetus is capable of reacting to the outside world (including to pain).

However, like explained in my last post, animals (which we kill for food every day, and sometimes even for sports) are even more sentient than a fetus is, in addition to being able to feel fear, and if we have no problem killing them, then we shouldn't have any problems with abortion either. Like i also mentioned, prohibiting abortion is going to have some very serious consequences, including for the unwanted children, and those consequences can be way more cruel than an abortion, and have a far more widespread negative effect on society.

Edit: I was actually thinking about the religious parts of the argument around abortion, if i were, say, arguing with a christian. If i were to make a 'religious' counter-argument to anti-abortion, imagine the following conversation:
Christian: "Abortion is murder, it's taking a life"
Me: "Okay, lets pretend the 'life' then goes to heaven in the state that it was 'murdered' (after all, it's innocent, so it should go to heaven). Is the life, in that state, gonna be capable of at least recognizing and understanding in even the smallest way that it has been murdered (which, for its vastly limited self-awareness would equal 'no longer in it's mothers womb'/being in a new environment), and is it going to make a difference to it? Because if not, then the child hasn't experienced cruelty, and the act that brought it there can not have been an act of cruelty."

 

[Haagrum]

It comes down to the following basic concepts:

1. A born child is alive
2. At some point in the womb, that child is considered alive
3. We cannot accurately define that point
4. Therefore, we err on the side of life and do not abort.

Reasonable minds may differ on points 2 and 3, above. It might be more accurate to say that we cannot agree on that point, not that it cannot be defined. Some people say at point of birth. Some people say at point of conception. Some people pick an arbitrary point (for example, three months' gestation). My personal view is that the point at which the child should be recognised as such is when it could conceivably (and with all medical assistance available) survive independently of its mother if born. I realise and accept that technology shifts this line.

Point 4 is a value judgment, based on the asserted unknowability of when a mass of cells becomes a "life" and the importance of life. Asserting that something is undefinable, and thus subsequent actions lack justification if they rely on defining that something, is only appropriate where that something is truly undefinable.

That's your logic and it works for you, and that's cool. I just wanted to point out the value judgment inherent in that reasoning (i.e. that we "cannot" define the point at which a foetus should be recognised as being a human life equal to any other person). If it were that easy, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

The same logic could be used to justify banning civilian possession of firearms, alcohol or motor vehicles.

it's not a fair comparison. It would only work if you were required to obtain a licence (or something similar) to undergo an abortion proceedure, which is silly.

On a side note: all of these can cause death - in only one death is assured, and it requires the least regulations (for the most part - can't speak to Texas and firearms) of the four...

Agreed - but my point was not that availability should be limited because of potential lethality. I was saying that the possibility of abuse is not a valid reason in and of itself to oppose abortion. If one accepts that there are circumstances where abortion is tolerable, the question becomes "What are those circumstances?" - the potential for abuse can't ever be a morally-defensible reason to prohibit what could in particular cases be the "least worst" option.

Very intesting points. now for my responses



My main point is that a person should have the right to live, unless by living somebody else must die, and that because abortion ends life, it is wrong.

Well said, and since it comes down to points of belief, I'm happy just to agree to disagree.

 

[Sectan]

I'm against abortion when it's for casual birth control, but I won't tell anyone they can't get one. Get some pills or wear a condom. It's when it turns into a health issue or a women gets rape or something along those lines it's more of a gray area. Then again I think how many of our future world leaders or scientists have possibly been aborted or blabbity blah blah blah.

 

[asinann]

The abortion debate at it's core (for the people who are actually pushing the anti-abortion movement) isn't about the child or life: it's about keeping women subservient to men. The vast majority of people who feel that abortion is bad genuinely feel that way, but the people at the top of the movement are just in it to keep power over women.

As evidence, I present that the people at the top of the anti-abortion movement are almost exclusively male.

And for all those people saying those babies could be up for adoption and that there is some kind of shortage of children to adopt, there really isn't. Every child in foster care in the US is up for adoption (and there are literally thousands of these children just looking for a home with a permanent family,) the problem is that adoptive parents want BABIES to adopt, not children. Once a kid hits two they become almost unadoptable because now the kid has it's own thoughts and personality that could very well be screwed up and parents want to screw up the kid themselves.

 

[Athinira]

It's funny how people here can even compare human life to animals.
The world is fucked up, really fucked up.

The only difference between 'human life' and 'animal life' is that we as a species are capable of the feat of 'understanding' things that most animals can't. Other than that, animal and human life are pretty much equivalent. We both have instincts, impulsive emotions (and even animals have intelligence).

A fetus, however, isn't capable of most of those things. Like it or not, it's way more primitive than even the most stupid animals (hell, even more primitive than insects). It doesn't know neither danger nor fear, it can't be terrified. Animals can, and therefore animals are capable of understanding and feeling cruelty, while a fetus isn't. At worst, a fetus can react to pain, but it can't be afraid or terrified of it. All it can is react to it.

It's true that it CAN eventually achieve these things if allowed to live, but i can turn that argument around and argue that every time a man ejaculates, that ejaculation could also eventually have achieved the same thing. That doesn't mean that ejaculation is mass murder if it isn't used to conceive a child.

Let me ask you a question for a minute: If the 'right to live' should be defined by whether or not we are human (in which case the fetus wins out over the animals), rather than intellectual capabilities (in which case, the fetus loses out to the animals), then why isn't it considered murder to shut of the medical ventilator of a person who is (partially) braindead. After all, that person is still human, even if his intelligence is at fetus-level.

 

[Duke Machine]

Being a Christian myself I detest that the pro-life movement is associated with Christianity because well I entirely disagree, granted needing an abortion is not an ideal scenario but its always better to have the option.

 

[BlueMage]

It's not a Christian cause. I'm not Christian. I oppose abortion.

It comes down to the following basic concepts:

1. A born child is alive
2. At some point in the womb, that child is considered alive
3. We cannot accurately define that point
4. Therefore, we err on the side of life and do not abort.

Incorrect. We are perfectly capable of measuring when a fetus is capable of reacting to the outside world (including to pain).

However, like explained in my last post, animals (which we kill for food every day, and sometimes even for sports) are even more sentient than a fetus is, in addition to being able to feel fear, and if we have no problem killing them, then we shouldn't have any problems with abortion either. Like i also mentioned, prohibiting abortion is going to have some very serious consequences, including for the unwanted children, and those consequences can be way more cruel than an abortion, and have a far more widespread negative effect on society.

That's the thing though buddy - yes, we can measure its response to pain, but that does not preclude it from being alive prior to that. That's the kicker. Our tools, our measurements, they are not yet precise enough. Our understanding is not yet there. No doubt it will be, but not yet.

And as much as I agree with you in regards to the animals, they are not given the same status in the majority's eyes. And we'd have to convince the unwashed majority.

Personally, I'm all for the idea of basically cloning animal flesh for consumption - should be doable.

It comes down to the following basic concepts:

1. A born child is alive
2. At some point in the womb, that child is considered alive
3. We cannot accurately define that point
4. Therefore, we err on the side of life and do not abort.

Reasonable minds may differ on points 2 and 3, above. It might be more accurate to say that we cannot agree on that point, not that it cannot be defined.

True, perhaps it would be appropriate to append on the end of point 3 "at this time".

Some people say at point of birth. Some people say at point of conception. Some people pick an arbitrary point (for example, three months' gestation).

With the exception of at birth, these are all arbitrary. Being unable to determine a non-arbitrary point requires me to go cautiously. If I don't know, I don't know, and I'll endeavour to find out, but until that point, I choose the cautious path. In this case, that the entity is alive from the moment we can recognise it as an entity.

My personal view is that the point at which the child should be recognised as such is when it could conceivably (and with all medical assistance available) survive independently of its mother if born. I realise and accept that technology shifts this line.

Perfectly reasonable. It's one of the less arbitrary ways of arriving at a definition

Point 4 is a value judgment, based on the asserted unknowability of when a mass of cells becomes a "life" and the importance of life. Asserting that something is undefinable, and thus subsequent actions lack justification if they rely on defining that something, is only appropriate where that something is truly undefinable.

Undefinable at the time. I've no doubt we will eventually figure out exactly when it becomes a specific, living entity. But that point is not now. Risk management, y'know?

That's your logic and it works for you, and that's cool. I just wanted to point out the value judgment inherent in that reasoning (i.e. that we "cannot" define the point at which a foetus should be recognised as being a human life equal to any other person). If it were that easy, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

That's why I included that little bit at the end - this was originally a discussion I had with an Objectivist. A self-centered, self-absorbed prick of a guy, who nonetheless could not logically deduce at which point the fetus becomes a living entity and thus subject to the same rights he held, and thus could not conscience abortion. I was originally saying what you do

 

[Andy of Comix Inc]

Monty Python will explain it for you. ...via song and dance!

 

[Athinira]

That's the thing though buddy - yes, we can measure its response to pain, but that does not preclude it from being alive prior to that. That's the kicker. Our tools, our measurements, they are not yet precise enough. Our understanding is not yet there. No doubt it will be, but not yet.

If the argument is whether or not it's 'alive', then that's easily settled: It has been alive before it was even conceived. Sperm is alive, every cell of our body that isn't dead yet is alive.

It's important to distinguish between 'being alive' and 'a life'. The discussion was never about if the fetus was alive. It has always been alive before it was even conceived. The discussion is about when it can be considered 'a life' (as in, killing/removing it can be considered murder). If you scratch your skin, and tear off some skin cells which then dies, then we can hopefully both agree that this isn't murder.

And you are wrong. There is plenty of scientific studies that show when a fetus is capable of reacting to the outside world, as well as how their brain develops and gains capabilities (i selected the word 'capabilities' carefully here, rather than using 'intelligence'. Intelligence isn't obtained during pregnancy, it only starts developing after the child is born). In fact, the period you are allowed to have an abortion in most parts of the world (where it's legal) is based upon those scientific studies. The ways the human brain develops isn't as unknown as you think, even before birth.

 

[Haagrum]

Undefinable at the time. I've no doubt we will eventually figure out exactly when it becomes a specific, living entity. But that point is not now. Risk management, y'know?

That's your logic and it works for you, and that's cool. I just wanted to point out the value judgment inherent in that reasoning (i.e. that we "cannot" define the point at which a foetus should be recognised as being a human life equal to any other person). If it were that easy, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

That's why I included that little bit at the end - this was originally a discussion I had with an Objectivist. A self-centered, self-absorbed prick of a guy, who nonetheless could not logically deduce at which point the fetus becomes a living entity and thus subject to the same rights he held, and thus could not conscience abortion. I was originally saying what you do

Fair enough. You seem to favour a risk-management approach based on the sanctity of life. I take a differing view, which includes the rights and actual needs of the mother as well as the ethical and moral undesirability of deliberately terminating a pregnancy. Again, values judgment, and I'm happy to just disagree.

As far as the Objectivist is concerned... could you tell him that the concept of a "living entity... subject to the same rights he held" is utterly replete with inherently subjective considerations? Most of the Objectivists I've met are really just seeking to validate their own points of view by claiming a lack of subjectivity.

 

[TorqueConverter]

The only difference between 'human life' and 'animal life' is that we as a species are capable of the feat of 'understanding' things that most animals can't. Other than that, animal and human life are pretty much equivalent. We both have instincts, impulsive emotions (and even animals have intelligence).

A fetus, however, isn't capable of most of those things. Like it or not, it's way more primitive than even the most stupid animals (hell, even more primitive than insects). It doesn't know neither danger nor fear, it can't be terrified. Animals can, and therefore animals are capable of understanding and feeling cruelty, while a fetus isn't.

It's true that it CAN eventually achieve these things if allowed to live, but i can turn that argument around and argue that every time a man ejaculates, that ejaculation could also eventually have achieved the same thing. That doesn't mean that ejaculation is mass murder if it isn't used to conceive a child.

I'm a pro-choicer, but for the sake of argument it can be argued that a severely retarded person is not self aware in the same manner as a fetus is not self aware. It is OK to treat the severely retarded as if they are fetus? What about infants, are they capable of understanding? Is an infant the same as a fetus? The argument of what and what does not deserves moral protection goes nowhere fast. Either you give too much moral protection or too little. This is one of the reasons why the argument of a woman and a woman alone having a right to her body, irregardless of moral protection to the fetus, has worked for so long in pro-choice.