Abortion? The final conclusions?

[Roboramma]

So I suppose my dilemma is when we consider the life to be human.

I think this is one of the major problems with this whole debate. The idea that human life is sacred, and thus if a fetus is "human", it's life is also sacred, seems to be missing the point.

Rather, I think we should ask a few simple questions. What is it about "human life" that we think is important or meaningful. Why do we feel it is wrong to kill "human life"?
Those things which share those properties should also be concidered to be meaningful. Those which do not, should not. Arguing about whether it is a human being (rather than whether or not it has the qualities that we concider inherently valueable in human beings), is very much like arguing whether or not it has a soul.

Some things, (like a fetus at a certain degree of development, or even an infant of young age, or some other species of animals) will share some but not all of those qualities. They might then be concidered to fall somewhere along a spectrum of value, such that we might feel, "Abortion shouldn't be allowed at this stage, unless the mother's life is in danger". Clearly we are still putting more value on the mother's life than the fetus', while at the same time we are clearly putting some value on the life of the fetus.

Words like "human life" have a lot of connotations that get wrapped up in the argument. We start arguing about whether or not a fetus is a human-being or a human life-form, and missing the point of such discussions, which is to question how much value (if any) should be attached to it's life.

 

[Francesca R]

Link-bump . . .

Attn: thaiboxerken. Do you have a response? If not I will consider your arguments to be withdrawn.

 

[skeptifem]

I read an interesting paper from someone who was pro choice and assumed that the fetus was qualified for personhood. They treated the fetus legally like a person and still decided that they shouldnt be allowed to cause possibly injury to a woman and live in her body against her will. i will cross post it once i am off of work and can go to the site where i first read about it. it was neat, a lot more in depth than the description I am giving.

 

[bob_kark]

I think this is one of the major problems with this whole debate. The idea that human life is sacred, and thus if a fetus is "human", it's life is also sacred, seems to be missing the point.

Rather, I think we should ask a few simple questions. What is it about "human life" that we think is important or meaningful. Why do we feel it is wrong to kill "human life"?
Those things which share those properties should also be concidered to be meaningful. Those which do not, should not. Arguing about whether it is a human being (rather than whether or not it has the qualities that we concider inherently valueable in human beings), is very much like arguing whether or not it has a soul.

Some things, (like a fetus at a certain degree of development, or even an infant of young age, or some other species of animals) will share some but not all of those qualities. They might then be concidered to fall somewhere along a spectrum of value, such that we might feel, "Abortion shouldn't be allowed at this stage, unless the mother's life is in danger". Clearly we are still putting more value on the mother's life than the fetus', while at the same time we are clearly putting some value on the life of the fetus.

Words like "human life" have a lot of connotations that get wrapped up in the argument. We start arguing about whether or not a fetus is a human-being or a human life-form, and missing the point of such discussions, which is to question how much value (if any) should be attached to it's life.

I think the problem with this argument is that we still consider the killing of someone who does not reflect these properties to be murder. For example, simply because a man is in a coma does not mean that we are free to kill him. The same would be true for someone who is mentally challenged. Once a being is determined to be human, it is empowered with a right to live. This right to live is not diminished by their condition.

 

[skeptifem]

I'm going to go out on a limb here and guess that anyone who supports "abortion without any restrictions" has never been present during a child-birth.

Its really, really gross.

I dont like babies or children, at all. I never have. To me a woman giving birth after being ejaculated into is just about as magical as eating a sandwhich and then taking a *****.

 

[skeptifem]

If brain dead humans aren't "people" why then is killing them against the law if they wanted to be kept on life support?

I dont think this is quite the same. A brain dead person has a family, and the brain dead person can't care about wether or not they are alive. what they represent to the family and friends is what is important at that point. That is why their wishes are followed. A fetus can't give you their wishes ahead of time because they never had them in the first place.

 

[King of the Americas]

Since when has congnative ability had ANYTHING to do with the right to live or die??? I mean without a living will stating what to do in the case of brain death... As in the case of Terri Shiavo.

I think the most important issue in this case is 'individuality'. The term 'individual rights' is used throughout our Consititution. Bantering back and forth about 'brain' activity is a goose chase, in my opinion. I mean if I don't have my coffee, 'I' am not entirely 'here'... But that doesn't mean 'I' should be terminated... Well, unless I left a living will that stated that is what 'I' want to happen, or if I told my wife or other close family member that's what I want to happen.

I think we should start at the beginning...

Does 'sperm' deserve legal protection? Should we legislate 'throwing away' frozen donations, when they are no longer needed? Or how about 'eggs', do THEY deserve legal protection and or the same individual rights???

Personally, I think NOT.

The next step is embroys... Right NOW, they are tossing away embroys that are no longer needed. If emborys are individuals, then murder is being commited on a daily basis... I hear no one screaming or protesting about that.

So, the question should be, as stated above by someone else, when does the clump of cells BECOME an 'individual' deserving of Constitutionally provided 'Individual Rights'?

Having already stated my case, I won't repeat myself.

I just wish to refocus the discussion on the issue that actually matters, when the fetus becomes deserving of protection...

 

[bob_kark]

The next step is embroys... Right NOW, they are tossing away embroys that are no longer needed. If emborys are individuals, then murder is being commited on a daily basis... I hear no one screaming or protesting about that.

You really aren't searching very hard then. Google "fertility clinic" and "murder." Mind you, I don't agree with them, but many people are protesting it.

So, the question should be, as stated above by someone else, when does the clump of cells BECOME an 'individual' deserving of Constitutionally provided 'Individual Rights'?

Having already stated my case, I won't repeat myself.

I just wish to refocus the discussion on the issue that actually matters, when the fetus becomes deserving of protection...

I don't know that I can answer that.

 

[steverino]

To me a woman giving birth after being ejaculated into is just about as magical as eating a sandwhich and then taking a *****.

Even MORE magical would be a woman giving birth BEFORE being ejaculated into.

 

[Francesca R]

nails . . . any comeback here?

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=2078950#post2078950

Even MORE magical would be a woman giving birth BEFORE being ejaculated into.

That's about as fantastical as Santa Claus! If that happened I wouldn't mind betting that somebody would start a religion over it.

 

[SophieG]

Many people here seem to be argueing that abortion should be allowed as long as the baby couldn't survive outside of the mothers womb.

If one day in the future we develop the means (let's say a heart lung machine) that allow us to save babies that leave the body in say the fifteenth week of pregnancy, would you then argue that the limits of abortion should be put back to allow for this?

If in an even more distant future we find ourselves able to save babies at the point of conception, would this mean the end of abortion?


I personally have huge difficulties in defining human life as a function of medical advances. It would seem to mean that it implies that a fetus in the year 1920 is a child in 2006. It could also be seen to imply that a child would be a fetus in a country that lacked the medical knowhow to keep it alive while it would be considered a child with every basic human right in a well developed western country.

For me this is a dangerously airy fairy definition of something that is as important to define as human status.


And for the people who argue that abortion should be allowed during the whole of the pregnancy.

A child could in that case be aborted from the body a matter of hours (or even minutes) before the birth is due. Do you therefore somehow see it as being different if you kill the baby in the womb, by way of poison or such like or if you take the baby out and then kill it?

For in the second case, surely if the baby is out and not dependent on the mothers womb it would be considered murder if we killed it?

Is it really only the location of the body that defines human value in a situation like this? Personally I find that just as airyfairy and more than a little bit scary.

 

[steverino]

Many people here seem to be argueing that abortion should be allowed as long as the baby couldn't survive outside of the mothers womb.

If one day in the future we develop the means (let's say a heart lung machine) that allow us to save babies that leave the body in say the fifteenth week of pregnancy, would you then argue that the limits of abortion should be put back to allow for this?

If in an even more distant future we find ourselves able to save babies at the point of conception, would this mean the end of abortion?


I personally have huge difficulties in defining human life as a function of medical advances. It would seem to mean that it implies that a fetus in the year 1920 is a child in 2006. It could also be seen to imply that a child would be a fetus in a country that lacked the medical knowhow to keep it alive while it would be considered a child with every basic human right in a well developed western country.

For me this is a dangerously airy fairy definition of something that is as important to define as human status.


And for the people who argue that abortion should be allowed during the whole of the pregnancy.

A child could in that case be aborted from the body a matter of hours (or even minutes) before the birth is due. Do you therefore somehow see it as being different if you kill the baby in the womb, by way of poison or such like or if you take the baby out and then kill it?

For in the second case, surely if the baby is out and not dependent on the mothers womb it would be considered murder if we killed it?

Is it really only the location of the body that defines human value in a situation like this? Personally I find that just as airyfairy and more than a little bit scary.

Sophie- Welcome to the loony bin, um, the forum. Some here think human life holds no sentiment or emotional component, which I think is very scary. The irony with this forum is that sometimes even the most logical post, like yours, will be batted down by "emotional science."

 

[thaiboxerken]

If it is still a factor in your mind, then a 13 month old infant is still not a human.

Puhleaze. Stop building a strawman of my position. I never said a fetus isn't human. Also, a 13 month old infant is not directly dependant on a host mother.

So, is sapience still a factor or have you changed your mind?

Yes, sapience is still a factor, one of a few that I've factored into my opinion.

So theoretically, we could perform a Cesarean section, remove the fetus and have it become human, then reinsert the fetus into the womb and have it become "non-human" again?

No one has argued, at any point, that the fetus isn't human. Try again.

Well, you still have to remove the fetus from the womb, whether or not the fetus is still alive, or else the mother will die. Therefore, both mother and fetus are dependent on it exiting the womb. Considering the stipulation that the fetus was old enough to survive outside the womb, does this now make it human?

It was always human, just not an independant, sapient being.

 

[thaiboxerken]

Link-bump . . .

Attn: thaiboxerken. Do you have a response? If not I will consider your arguments to be withdrawn.

The response is no.

 

[thaiboxerken]

I just wonder why anti-abortionists condone having the government force women to keep things inside of their uterus that they don't want there. It's my opinion that what a woman wants to keep inside of her body is solely her choice alone. Maybe I'm just weird. Then again, I think rape is wrong as well.

 

[thaiboxerken]

Many people here seem to be argueing that abortion should be allowed as long as the baby couldn't survive outside of the mothers womb.

Right, I agree that it's somewhat of a fallacy. I think that a woman should be allowed to abort at anytime during her pregnancy.

A child could in that case be aborted from the body a matter of hours (or even minutes) before the birth is due. Do you therefore somehow see it as being different if you kill the baby in the womb, by way of poison or such like or if you take the baby out and then kill it?

I see it different because as long as the fetus is inside of the womb, it is up to the host mother to make decisions pertaining to her pregnancy.

For in the second case, surely if the baby is out and not dependent on the mothers womb it would be considered murder if we killed it?

The two cases are different, thus the question is irrelevant.

Is it really only the location of the body that defines human value in a situation like this?

If it involves being inside of the womb, yes. The location of the penis also defines what rape is or isn't. It's my opinion that people should have sole control over what goes in, out or stays inside of their own body.

Personally I find that just as airyfairy and more than a little bit scary.

What I find scary is that people would force other people to go through the trauma, stress and tragedy of birthing an unwanted child.

 

[skeptifem]

nails . . . any comeback here?

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=2078950#post2078950

That's about as fantastical as Santa Claus! If that happened I wouldn't mind betting that somebody would start a religion over it.

I usually surf here at work, so for the time being, no. Perhaps you should look again at why I posted that in the first place- it was the other side of the coin to someones non logical emotional reaction to abortion. I posted from home for that.

There are plenty of good logical arguments against abortion, but the post wasnt really made as an argument so much as to show the other side of examining the situation emotionally. Man A doesnt like abortion because the result of a pregnancy he participated in was beautiful and all that good stuff parents always say, and I had the opposite experience. I saw the negetive results that pregnancies can have.


I saw the 'they didnt ask to be mercy killed' comment, they didnt ask NOT to be either. deal.

 

[steverino]

Perhaps I should share my personal, emotional, experienced based opinion on abortion to present the opposite side to luke t's experiences.

I went to a high school with a teen pregnancy program, it was the only one for quite a ways so most teen mothers from neighboring towns who wanted a diploma would end up there.

I can not begin to express how sorry I felt for the children of those mothers.

The teen moms got their own home room, where they were taught how to care for children and were taught about birth control. It didnt matter, most of them got pregnant again after attending the school, they learned nothing. The number of people being investigated by CPS also showed that caring for their own children is too much of a challenge for many of them.

Two of them were sisters who were third generation teen mothers. Being pregnant at an early age where they are unable to afford or care for children is a normal thing in their gene pool, almost doomed into being unable to pass on a sense of responsibility to their children. Other girls had mothers who were pregnant as teens as well. Despite having their own mothers raise them poorly, most decided to have babies young. The reason most often sited for this is being pro life for religious reasons. Jesus never gives people more than they can take, right?

Some of them were drug addicts and alcoholics, unwilling to give up their habits even during second or third pregnancies. One girl kept coming to school and using alcohol despite being ordered to take bedrest and having to take magnesium pills to keep her from expelling a 1.5 lb fetus three months early. She did give birth to her baby, it weighed a little over two pounds and was pre mature. Other babies had serious health problems due to the drug use of their mothers.

There were only one or two girls who did not have some sort of serious issue.

Almost all of these women were on government assistance and congradulated each other when their children were approved for government programs. The ones who did have jobs were in food service. They were less mature than the average teenager, and didnt seem to grow up at all no matter how much they messed up their childrens lives by being arrested or using drugs or choosing men over their own children. I can't imagine coming out of these situations with a healthy childhood.

An awful lot of them had serious emotional problems. Manipulation, constant lying, unprovoked aggressive behavior, psyical violence (domestic as well), theft, and every kind of drama you can imagine was not uncommon.

The sad part of it was that these women were in the minority of teen mothers who actually cared enough to finish high school.

Statistics show that society usually pays the price long after the children of these mothers turn 18 and move out- sons of teen moms are much more likely to go to prison and commit crimes, and daughters of teen moms are much more likely to become teen mothers and perpetuate the cycle.

Saying that women who dont use birth control deserve to have children isnt quite correct- what is really being said is that children who are concieved out of stupidity deserve to be born and raised by irresponsible people. I dont think that children deserve these kinds of situations, they do not ask to be born. Children deserve to grow up wanted and cared for, and adoption does NOT ensure that. There are far too many children out there being hurt because of something they had no part in, and we all know that these situations are not exclusive to teen motherhood. Seeing that much wrong going on twards children does something to you, especially when there are so many people working very hard to help those women fix their lives and it makes no difference. If abortion is murder, its a mercy killing.

This sad cycle of abuse makes me wonder if such pregnant teens as you describe have the emotional capacity to decide whether terminating their pregnancy is in their best long term interest.

 

[skeptifem]

Well, I would say the vast majority of the girls kept the babies because they felt doing otherwise was sinning, and their families and friends confirmed that belief. There was one girl who talked openly about her abortions and the lot of the moms ganged up on her and say they were murderers and going to hell, etc. It was crazy, they were taking the moral high ground and being preachy to others about how they should live their lives. The school was small and everyone knew everyones business. about 125 people were going there at a time, probably 20 or so teen mothers.

I dont know who would choose besides the pregnant girl herself. I dont think its right for anyone to pick for them, I also dont think many of them felt they had a choice after they were already pregnant. I think that is the issue that could use some help.

 

[AWPrime]

If brain dead humans aren't "people" why then is killing them against the law if they wanted to be kept on life support?

Because that decision was made by a person before becoming just a being.

Being a person is being able to live on your own outside of the womb.

I see that the notion of self (the most important part) is missing here.

You clearly aren't reading what i'm saying here. VIABLE babies who are a few weeks from delivery can live outside of the mothers womb without technology.

Technology is just a form of support.