Abortion....why?

[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.

 

[Athinira]

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.

It's funny, because i was just in the process of editing my post you just quoted to include the following paragraph (which is in the post now btw):

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.

My arguments in this case would be that even VERY severely retarded people are at least on the intelligence level of a newborn baby. I consider babies, and even fetuses who have passed a certain stage in the mothers womb (typically ahead of the legal abortion period), to be developed enough for it to be considered murder if killed (abortions at a late stage included). An infant is very much developed, and is capable of feelings a wide array of emotions (although they are limited in how they can react to those emotions. They mostly react to any negative emotion with crying for example, compared to a grownup who will react to different negative emotions in different ways). So yes, there is a big difference there.

A person who is brain dead, on the other hand, is in a much worse state than that, easily at the level of an early infant, or perhaps even lower than that (a truly brain dead person might as well not have a brain). That's why it's not considered murder to shut off the medical ventilator keeping a brain dead car crash victim alive, and i agree with that assessment.

 

[Thaius]

Because they believe that life begins at conception and that killing the "baby" is murder. I don't know what part of the Bible it's in though. Personally don't see why they'll give a bunch of uncoordinated cells more rights than a fully formed person who happens to be gay.

Edit: I know why they do but it's still bullshit.

Just nitpicking here, but outside of the comically insane Westboro Baptist, I don't know any Christians who deny gays the right to live. Just throwing that out there.

OT: Keep in mind we're dealing with life here. That's a big subject. If people believe that abortion is killing a baby (which I think is a perfectly understandable idea), then I'd say they're justified in fighting against their legal murder, wouldn't you? Look at it from their perspective; I'm not saying to side with them, but just consider what it would be like from the perspective of a person who believes that life begins at conception. It becomes a matter of whether murder is legal in certain contexts. And that is certainly something worth talking about.

 

[Thaluikhain]

Just nitpicking here, but outside of the comically insane Westboro Baptist, I don't know any Christians who deny gays the right to live. Just throwing that out there.

The Pope claimed that homosexuals are a greater threat to the world than global warming.

Not the same as outright syaing they should be killed, but they are something that should be deleted.

 

[lynxtips]

I read through this entire thread and someone above mentioned (sorry, too lazy to find and quote) that we don't have funerals for miscarried fetuses.

So I thought I'd share my experience because I have been to a funeral of a miscarried fetus, my sister.

This wasn't a planned pregnancy for my mother, she was over 40, but it was a welcome one. Or would've been, at least, if she had known she was pregnant. When her cycle stopped she honestly thought it was the onset of menopause.

My sister didn't live for long outside of my mother's body, but she was given a name, birth certificate, death certificate and about a week or two later a funeral. It's not the kind of funeral you ever hear about though, no obituary, no official invitations sent, just immediate family. So it's easy to imagine that they just don't happen and I'm sure a lot of times they don't.

People deal with their grief or problems differently and for Mom it was important to her that my sister was dealt with like a human being and not a fetus because for that brief time, she breathed air and her heart beat and she was a living member of our family.

Now, does this experience make me pro-life? No, it doesn't. I'm pro-choice. There's a great quote that goes "I may disagree with what you say, but I'll defend your right to say it."

So maybe in "your" circumstances I disagree with "your" choice to have an abortion, however, I feel that every woman has the right to make that choice with out the government interfering.

That's the big issue I have with the abortion debate. You can argue over pro-life and pro-choice but it isn't the people that have to set up the rules and boundaries over it, it's the government, and I just don't think that it's the government's place to decide what a woman can or can't do with their body (which is a slippery slope, I admit, but that's the way I feel on this particular issue) and that each person should decide for themselves according to their conscience, values and cultural mores.

 

[personion]

How about adoption... why not?

I'm pro life but I don't think abortion is murder. I do, however, think it's wrong, and that's just simply my stance on it. Now, your question is why do so many Christians take a pro-life stance. Well, I think it has to do with our value of human life, and our consideration of the potential. I, personally, don't view it as just a cluster of cells but potential for a new human life, and that's important to me. Yes, I know saying this on the internet will normally rile a bunch of people up, but this is the escapist, so I'm pretty sure this will be a more accepting atmosphere of opposing ideas. As far as I'm concerned, people should take responsibility for their own actions. If you can't afford a baby, don't have sex. If you want to have sex use contraception. If the contraception fails somehow, then adoption is always an option. Anyway, that's my stance on it.

 

[Emperor Nat]

Entire works of art are devoted to it, even going as far back as Nightmare on Elm Street 5.

Does it seem weird to anyone else that those two things are in the same sentence?

OT: It is because most pro-life people consider abortion equal to murder. They think that when one aborts, that person is killing a child, and emotions take over. As for why Christians think it is bad, well the Bible says murder is bad, so by putting two and two together... I think you can do the rest.

Interestingly, within the Bible the hebrew term for "Child" is used to refer to unborn babies, newborns and what we would consider children.

Also, there is a law that states that if a man strikes a woman and causes her pregnancy to miscarry, he is to be tried for murder and potentially executed.

 

[TorqueConverter]

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.

It's funny, because i was just in the process of editing my post you just quoted to include the following paragraph (which is in the post now btw):

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.

My arguments in this case would be that even VERY severely retarded people are at least on the intelligence level of a newborn baby. I consider babies, and even fetuses who have passed a certain stage in the mothers womb (typically ahead of the legal abortion period), to be developed enough for it to be considered murder if killed (abortions at a late stage included). An infant is very much developed, and is capable of feelings a wide array of emotions (although they are limited in how they can react to those emotions. They mostly react to any negative emotion with crying for example, compared to a grownup who will react to different negative emotions in different ways). So yes, there is a big difference there.

A person who is brain dead, on the other hand, is in a much worse state than that, easily at the level of an early infant, or perhaps even lower than that (a truly brain dead person might as well not have a brain). That's why it's not considered murder to shut off the medical ventilator keeping a brain dead car crash victim alive, and i agree with that assessment.

I agree with you but want to point out that the boundaries between what does and does not deserve moral protection is a slippery slope at best. An infant has no concept of what a colt 45 is. If I were to place said handgun to the infants head, it would show now negative reaction as it simply cannot grasp the concepts of firearms and death. Levels of awareness and rationality alone are hardly grounds for moral protection.

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.

I agree minus the last bit. It's interesting to point out that some of the "contraception" pills are actually an abortion in a bottle. If I remember correctly These pills act post-conception by denying the zygote the ability to adhere to the uterus and gain nutrients, essentially killing it. Not that there is anything wrong with that, but fuel for the pro lifers against those types of drugs.

 

[Balgus]

Rape babies... if you are raped and you have to bring up the child not only is it a traumatic experience if you're pro-life you ALSO have to bring up the child I know it's an out there scenario but just think about it... You also have to look at the murdering side of it not just as a religious person but as a person in general. You're still killing it's just not murder yet.

 

[BlueMage]

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.

My point being friend, what level of certainty do we have that, prior to reaction to external stimuli, the entity is not a life unto itself? That is the point I make. I'm well aware that, where abortion is legal, late-term and mid-term abortions are only undertaken when the mother's life is in significant danger.

Incidentally, if you'd care to provide links to such studies, I'd be happy to read them. Knowledge shared is knowledge multiplied.

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.

I have to have a risk-management approach - I'm a manager. Everything I want to do, or have a contractor do, it always comes back to "what's the risk?" The joys of working for a hospital.

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.

They're a special breed, no doubt about that. This guy was remarkably consistent however.

 

[Sprinal]

Other than the obvious note that I have never seen a woman protesting against abortion. I think it is just some twat who thought the whole thing up and has no understanding of biology. Thus s/he then used this on someone who had even less and then gave it to the republicans to use as a bargaining chip. And now look where it is...


Then It spreads everywhere. I still find it amusing however that some of the pro-lifers suport execution at the same time. It is really sad in my opinion.

Now back to my first sentence point (that only men protest it as far as I have observed). I can then see it as an attack on women's rights. This could easily be the reason to hate abortion so much..

Really sad considereing the work so many people put towards it back in the '60s-'90s.

Meh they will get bored eventually...

 

[Vicarious Reality]

I wonder if these people who want to legislate abortion also eat meat?

I don't see the correlation... explain?

Since humans are omnivorous, meat is a staple in our diets. We are not however, cannibalistic (barring a few remote tribes), so the statement is completely lost on me. Seems like a failed troll...

Many animals have the same level of conciousness as even year old babies.

 

[ExileNZ]

It's funny, in France it seems more to be a question of convenience, or even of just being picky. Take this with a grain of salt (two points make a line, not a trend), but the norm here seems to be to terminate if they detect brain damage or trisomy or anything like that. It seems to be the accepted thing to do, rather than something that needs justifying or that even requires a lot of thought.

So here's the thing. I am pro-choice. All the way. This is because I believe people should have the right to choose whether or not they bring a child into this world.

But the question was posed to me recently whether I'd personally abort a kid because it was trisomic. And there it all changes.

Aborting because I don't want a kid at all is one thing.
Aborting because I don't think the one in the works is "good enough" is something else entirely.
Who am I to make that call?

It just seems... callous.

I won't bring religion into this, I already said I'm pro-choice but if anyone cares, I'm not religious myself.

 

[FamoFunk]

Because some people are idiots who try to control others.

There is nothing wrong with abortion; it's a life saver for many Woman, those who've been raped, those who physically and/or mentally can't go through pregnancy or looking after a human.

A lot of abortions are for medical reasons, because the baby has something wrong with them. In a lot of cases, abortion is the best option because said baby would have an extremely poor quality of life or not even survive long after birth.

No one knows the circumstances surrounding the Woman and why she's opted for an abortion, it's not an easy option and something you can take lightly. She shouldn't be judged.

The only time it does become a problem is when Women freely use it as a form of contraception. It's wrong and insulting to those who have to make the heartbreaking decision to have one through no fault of their own.

 

[GraveeKing]

Hey, I'm the lazy kind of christian... sought of. I approve of abortion!
Although I don't believe in the choice - I just don't have the faith in humanity to let anymore idiots be born - if the parents didn't have triple digit IQ. The baby does not live, he'll have a terrible life the poor thing! Other than that, anyone else should have the choice of course.