The abortion debate

[DavidS]

As the OP of this thread, I ask that everyone remain civil and shy away from using personal attacks on one another to make your point.

The conservative point of view, if I understand this correctly, is that a fetus or a pre-fetus is a life form with the potential to become a human.

The liberal point of view is that the fetus, up until a certain time period, is not complex enough to consider human. No matter what it has the potential to become, it is not that currently and a woman should have the right to abort the pregnancy if she so chooses.

My view - first and early-mid second term abortions are acceptable. Anything beyond 22 weeks is disgusting and should be banned. If a fetus can survive outside the womb, then the fetus must be kept alive until birth unless it's a case of the mother's life. A rape victim should know pretty early on if she wants to terminate the pregnancy and I highly doubt an incest victim is going to mull it over for 22 weeks.

We kill bacteria every day. We kill incests every day. Sometimes we kill animals when we hunt. These are far more complex life forms than a fetus and many conservatives find it just fine to kill these. I do not view human life as being superior to animal life - I view it equal. For the traits and qualities and intelligence we posses, animals posses different traits and qualities superior to ours. Additionally, man relies on the animal for nourishment and clothing to be kept warm as we could not do this on our own. I find this hypocritical of conservatives.

So, that's my view on abortion. 22 weeks or less.

 

[Pyrite]

More or less agreed, though an important question is: where do you draw the line regarding danger to the mother? There are many conditions of birth where death of the mother is "likely", but not certain. Should abortion be permissible only at 100% certainty of death? at 75%? 50%? any real chance at all?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

A Fetus is a human life. Simple fact. It does no develop into anything else. If it can not be terminated after 22 weeks why would it be ok to terminate it for convenience before 22 weeks.

Abortion by choice and convenience is wrong. At any point after the fetus develops unless a medical necessity for the mother's life.

A human fetus is not an insect and it is not an animal nor a virus or anything other then a human life.

Further if it is murder for a second person to terminate the fetus by some action other then medical abortion how does one justify that it is not murder to CHOSE to terminate it for non medical emergency reasons?

I have no problem with the morning after pill by the way. As the Fetus has not developed and we have no way of knowing if one would have. Simply birth control before the fact.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

More or less agreed, though an important question is: where do you draw the line regarding danger to the mother? There are many conditions of birth where death of the mother is "likely", but not certain. Should abortion be permissible only at 100% certainty of death? at 75%? 50%? any real chance at all?

That would be the Doctor and Mother's call. I would say any Reasonable chance of death, not just the remote possibility.

 

[KittenKoder]

I'm not big on having a huge population, so I say make it completely illegal, let wives die when they have complications, great population control in my book.

 

[JBeukema]

As the OP of this thread, I ask that everyone remain civil and shy away from using personal attacks on one another to make your point.

The conservative point of view, if I understand this correctly, is that a fetus or a pre-fetus is a life form with the potential to become a human.

not quite. That's how the Left tries to portray the Right's position. If you read that carefully, you see the loaded language used to poison the well.

My view - first and early-mid second term abortions are acceptable

.
Why?

Anything beyond 22 weeks is disgusting and should be banned.

Why and how is it disgusting? Is the repulsion you feel the sole factor in your decision?

If a fetus can survive outside the womb, then the fetus must be kept alive until birth unless it's a case of the mother's life.

Why?

We kill bacteria every day. We kill incests every day. Sometimes we kill animals when we hunt. These are far more complex life forms than a fetus and many conservatives find it just fine to kill these

Define 'complex' and by what reason you equate the life of a microbe to human life when it suits your purpose, but not when the comparison ceases to suit your agenda- that is, if bacterial lifeforms are equal to our own as you imply, then homicide should never be a crime if it is okay to kill a microbe.

I do not view human life as being superior to animal life - I view it equal.

I assume you are a vegan who refuses to eat food grown on any farm that keeps animals, including but not limited to beasts of burden? I assume you have no pets and you support feline and ovine suffrage?

For the traits and qualities and intelligence we posses, animals posses different traits and qualities superior to ours.

Demonstrate that this is true and that it means we should regard them as outr equals

Additionally, man relies on the animal for nourishment and clothing to be kept warm as we could not do this on our own

That's simply not true. Clothes can be made from plants, and small personal/family gardens can be tended by hand to sustain us. If anything, the above supports the argument that animals are simply an animal resource we must and should use as needed.

I find this hypocritical of conservatives.

Your post is full of ideological inconsistencies that lead me to conclude there are two possibilities:
1) You're an idiot
2) You're an idiot trying to be a smartass

So, that's my view on abortion. 22 weeks or less.

Which you have yet to defend

 

[JBeukema]

More or less agreed, though an important question is: where do you draw the line regarding danger to the mother? There are many conditions of birth where death of the mother is "likely", but not certain. Should abortion be permissible only at 100% certainty of death? at 75%? 50%? any real chance at all?

Such numbers are rough guestimates based on statistics.

A Fetus is a human life. Simple fact. It does no develop into anything else.

Fact

If it can not be terminated after 22 weeks why would it be ok to terminate it for convenience before 22 weeks.

Good question

A human fetus is not an insect and it is not an animal nor a virus or anything other then a human life.

Also fact

Further if it is murder for a second person to terminate the fetus by some action other then medical abortion how does one justify that it is not murder to CHOSE to terminate it for non medical emergency reasons?

because one suits the Left's agenda and the other does not?

I have no problem with the morning after pill by the way. As the Fetus has not developed and we have no way of knowing if one would have. Simply birth control before the fact.

Does plan B prevent fertilization or merely implantation/impregnation?

That would be the Doctor and Mother's call. I would say any Reasonable chance of death, not just the remote possibility.

Basically, the same standards doctors currently use to assess risk?

I'm not big on having a huge population, so I say make it completely illegal, let wives die when they have complications, great population control in my book.

Sometime, I really want to smack you...

 

[KittenKoder]

I'm not big on having a huge population, so I say make it completely illegal, let wives die when they have complications, great population control in my book.

Sometime, I really want to smack you...

That's my official and true stance. However, when it comes to polls I vote pro-choice for a more selfish reason, I want the government to stop telling us what is right and wrong.

 

[JBeukema]

goddammit, kk...

 

[KittenKoder]

goddammit, kk...

*shrugs* It's a human, I don't get along with humans IRL ... or at least I don't like their company, though for some reason people enjoy being frightened. I have never hid that fact from anyone, however I like having my freedoms, and if that means I have to give others theirs as well, so be it. It's called using logic instead of personal taste or belief. I actually believe humans are a virus the planet created to build the one true intelligent life form.

 

[JBeukema]

*shrugs* It's a human

presumably

I don't get along with humans IRL ...

No shit

or at least I don't like their company,

Who does? There are a few rare exceptions, though

I have never hid that fact from anyone, however I like having my freedoms, and if that means I have to give others theirs as well, so be it.

So neo-anarchism and libertinism?

It's called using logic instead of personal taste or belief.

Logic tells us that libertinism and anarchy are both very bad for us and also that our moral instinct and social contracts benefit us by helping guarantee our wellbeing and improve our standard of life over what ewe would expect in the 'natural state'

I actually believe humans are a virus

No fucking shit. Sorry, but no points for the obvious <3

the planet created to build the one true intelligent life form.

Logic tells us that 'the planet' is not sentient ad has no will- though machines will likely supersede us if we achieve true AI

 

[KittenKoder]

Democracy works on the same ideology, that every freedom one person gets, we all get. Thus why supporting legalized adoption is the most logical way to go, because if you give the government an inch, they will turn dictatorship soon after.

 

[JBeukema]

Democracy works on the same ideology, that every freedom one person gets, we all get. Thus why supporting legalized adoption is the most logical way to go, because if you give the government an inch, they will turn dictatorship soon after.

All social systems are built on the forfeiture of certain freedoms in order to protect others. Only anarchy preserves all rights without 'giving the government an inch'- and anarchy can only exist so far as no two people ever meet eachother or interact in any meaningful way.

Not that (natural) rights can be demonstrated logically to exist int the first place

The mutual defense of life, when applied logically, ends up protecting the unborn, as I've gone over in other threads.

 

[KittenKoder]

Democracy works on the same ideology, that every freedom one person gets, we all get. Thus why supporting legalized adoption is the most logical way to go, because if you give the government an inch, they will turn dictatorship soon after.

All social systems are built on the forfeiture of certain freedoms in order to protect others. Only anarchy preserves all rights without 'giving the government an inch'- and anarchy can only exist so far as no two people ever meet eachother or interact in any meaningful way.

Not that (natural) rights can be demonstrated logically to exist int the first place

The mutual defense of life, when applied logically, ends up protecting the unborn, as I've gone over in other threads.

Aaah ... but protecting others is the only reason Democracy is different though, but you have to find the line, where does protecting others infringe on the rights of another ... sometimes you have to let people just make that choice on their own when such a case occurs. Quite simply, you are placing all fault with the bad choice on their conscience when you are unable to determine if and when you are truly protecting another.

 

[JBeukema]

Aaah ... but protecting others is the only reason Democracy is different thoug

First off, are we speaking Democratic (type) or Democracy (form)?

nope. Even oligarchies can be set up in such a way that the rights of all are (in theory) protected. The peasents relied on the Nobles for protection, and the nobels on the peasants' loyalty to secure their own position. The overall goal is the same

, but you have to find the line, where does protecting others infringe on the rights of another ...

Always. To protect your rights, mine must be restricted. Your 'right' to your personhood means I lose any 'right' to use force upon you. Your 'right' to property infringes upon my 'right' take that which I need to sustain myself

sometimes you have to let people just make that choice on their own when such a case occurs.

Again, anti-abortion laws are the logical continuation of the social protection of life

 

[Article 15]

I support the first trimester and life of the mother in danger.

Yeah, yeah, I hear y'all barking that it's a human life, yada, yada ... I really don't care.

First trimester, plenty of time to make a choice on whether or not to terminate something that has no chance of surviving outside the womb.

 

[Agnapostate]

My own justification for abortion is a fairly conventional utilitarian one that I've elaborated on elsewhere, including here. As I recall, the thread went down in flames when soggy decided to invade and scream. Regardless, here it is again if you want to have a look:

There is a rarely mentioned justification for abortion that I would like to bring up in this thread.

The justification is one of interests. Most liberal arguments fall short when it comes to addressing conservative opposition to abortion. But the justification based on interests is remarkably successful in this regard.

The typical opposition to abortion is that it destroys innocent human life. Liberals usually object that the fetus is not "human life." I think this is the wrong issue to be addressing. We can establish that the fetus is human life, just as multitudes of cells throughout the human body are "human life." We cannot, however, establish that the fetus is human life of significant moral value as easily. The embryo lacks moral value entirely because it does not have a single trait of personhood. It is not self-aware, (meaning that it does not have the capacity to view itself as a distinct entity existing over time), it does not have the capability to form rational moral preferences about its future, and it lacks the capacity to feel pain. It does not possess the capacity to feel pain until it is a late fetus.

Hence, the reason that the killing of an embryo or fetus is not morally equivalent to the murder of an older human is because the embryo or fetus (I’ll say fetus for convenience) is not a self-aware being, and does not possess certain necessary traits of personhood, such as the aforementioned self-consciousness, rationality, and for a long time, the capacity to feel pleasure and pain. A fetus does not have the same claim to life as a being that possesses those characteristics, and a fetus lacks personhood. Many nonhuman animals possess greater traits of personhood than a fetus does, and it is considered morally acceptable to kill those animals because they taste good.

As for the common claim that a fetus is a potential person, a potential person does not possess the same moral rights as an actual person. It does not hold that a potential X is equivalent to a current X. While a being is a fetus, it does not possess self-consciousness, that is, the capacity to view itself as a distinct entity over time. It may someday possess self-consciousness and other traits of personhood, such as rationality and the capacity to feel pleasure and pain, but at the moment, it does not. Hence, killing a fetus that lacks the capacity to make rational preferences, (such as the desire to live) is not morally equivalent to killing a being which does possess the capacity to make rational preferences, because killing the latter would deny and prevent the satisfaction of such preferences, which is antithetical to Enlightenment values of liberty and self-determination.

It is more wrong to drop a chicken into a pot of boiling water than it would be an egg. It is more wrong to chop down a venerable oak tree than to pull out an acorn. Recall that just about every cell on your body is a potential person. Recall that the existence of “potential persons” is thwarted by celibacy and contraception, and you do not consider those things to be morally wrong. (Presumably.) The argument regarding the potential personhood of a fetus certainly does not get you very far.

The feminist author Judith Jarvis Thomson has used the following analogy to justify abortion. A famous violinist is stricken with a disease, and requires an extremely rare blood type to survive. You have the blood type, and so a society of music lovers kidnaps you, and attaches your circulatory system to that of the violinist. You could get up and leave if you want to, but if you do, the violinist will die. However, if you remain connected to the violinist for nine months, he will fully recover. Is it morally acceptable for you to disconnect yourself from the violinist? Thomson holds that it is.

To me, this is the wrong example to be using becase the fetus lacks personhood. A better example would be if your circulatory system were attached to that of a rat, and the rat would die if you got up and disconnected yourself. Would disconnecting yourself be acceptable in this instance? I suspect that most conservatives would agree, and the only morally relevant difference between the fetus and the rat is that the rat possesses more traits of personhood than the fetus does.

Most conservatives consider it acceptable to place rat traps in a rat infested area to prevent the rodents from gnawing through food and other supplies. A single rat can probably incur damage of a few dollars, whereas an inconveniently timed pregnancy can incur damages of thousands of dollars. Conservatives may argue that the two situations are not comparable, and to some extent this is true, as a rat is a more advanced being than an early embryo or even a late fetus. It possesses a rudimentary level of self-consciousness and is capable of feeling pain.

Ultimately, we must consider the interests of a woman in not going through nine months of disability and a painful childbirth, as well as whatever economic difficulties an inconveniently timed childbirth may bring outweigh whatever rudimentary interests a fetus that is not a self-aware or rational being has.

I'm in full agreement with the point made about human fetuses possessing lower awareness of their existence and surroundings and a lesser capacity to suffer than various nonhuman animals. As noted by Peter Singer, "mere membership of our species doesn't settle the moral issue of whether it is wrong to end a life. As long as the abortion is carried out at less than 20 weeks of gestation – as almost all abortions are – the brain of the fetus has not developed to the point of making consciousness possible...In that respect, the fetus is less developed, and less aware of its circumstances, than the animals that we routinely kill and eat for dinner...[e]ven when the fetus does develop a capacity to feel pain – probably in the last third of the pregnancy – it still does not have the self-awareness of a chimpanzee, or even a dog."

Deviation is often explicitly religious in nature; opponents will admit that they believe that other animals are not suitable for comparison because they do not possess immortal souls as humans do.

 

[We Are They]

"because they do not possess immortal souls as humans do."

proof please.

 

[Agnapostate]

"because they do not possess immortal souls as humans do."

proof please.

I'm not the one claiming that, in case that's what you were inferring. I note that many people (such as our little friend RGS), refer to explicitly religious doctrines to support their position.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Sorry that argument fails because of the fact you are preventing the fetus from developing into the person it will be. Those arguments of yours could be used to end a babies life as it is not self aware either. About the only thing the new born baby has is the ability to feel pain, which in and of itself is unimportant to the argument.

A human Fetus will never develop into anything BUT a human. It is not going to become a rat or any other life form. You prevent that from happening by aborting the fetus. You end the life of a person, no matter how early in the pregnancy you make the decision to abort.