To which point do you accept abortion? (poll)

[Minoosh]

The "OK" part is not a great feature of the poll. I went with the UK, I think, even though 24 weeks is closer to viability than I'd like. Maybe I would say 18 weeks with allowance for hydrocephalic babies or other extreme cases.

This isn't really about "OK" it's about when does the fetus begin to have rights.

 

[bookitty]

Where is the "None of my business unless it's my body" option?

 

[tsig]

I had a thread about contraception / abortion / infanticide two years ago, without a poll.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=152722

Now there is another thread about the subject going on, also without a poll, so let us get some statistics about people´s opinions around here: see the poll.

On planet X we just kill the women when she becomes pregnant this not only solves the immediate problem but prevents any future ones.

 

[JJM 777]

I voted for "Spartan infanticide is ok within 7 days after birth", because I don´t see any tangible moral difference between aborting a baby at X weeks, with modern ultrasound screening data at hand, or getting the same information after birth without any high tech, and making the decision there and then.

If I were to write a law about this, I would define that the parents´ right to abortion ends when the parents bring the baby into the society from the hospital, or in any case 7 days after birth.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

I voted for "Spartan infanticide is ok within 7 days after birth", because I don´t see any tangible moral difference between aborting a baby at X weeks, with modern ultrasound screening data at hand, or getting the same information after birth without any high tech, and making the decision there and then.

If I were to write a law about this, I would define that the parents´ right to abortion ends when the parents bring the baby into the society from the hospital, or in any case 7 days after birth.

I think you and I both agree that there is no moral difference between killing a newborn infant, and killing an infant that is still in the womb, but is soon to be born.

There certainly is nothing really that magical about birth, that what exists right after birth is terribly different from what exists right before.

I would go farther, of course. There is no moral difference between killing a newly-conceived human zygote, and killing a newborn infant, or a toddler, or an adolescent, or an adult, or an elderly person who is moments short of natural death. In all these cases, what you are killing is a human being. And unless some drastic situation exists that justifies the killing of a human being, what you do by intentionally doing so is to commit murder, which is among the most serious evils that a human being can commit.

It seems to me that any consistent placing of the point after which a child has the right not to be arbitrarily killed, needs to be a point where one can clearly see that something different now exists, that didn't exist at all before that point.

There is only one such point. That is conception. Before conception, you have two haploid gametes. (Actually, you have a bunch of them, but only two are going to actually be relevant.) After conception, you have a new diploid organism, that didn't exist before, comprised of the joined DNA of the two haploid gametes that produced it. From this point, for the rest of this organism's life, it will be the same organism that it is at this point. There is no other magic point where you can say that it is a human being after that point, but not before. Every change that this organism will undergo, from this point, until its death, will be a matter of gradual change and development, and not ever again of the creation of anything new that wasn't there before.


Your position that “spartan infanticide” is OK is a natural progression of the acceptance of abortion as being in any way acceptable. There is no logic that ever purports to justify killing a child before it is born, that won't easily extend to killing it for some time after it is born.

 

[falkowsi]

It seems to me that any consistent placing of the point after which a child has the right not to be arbitrarily killed, needs to be a point where one can clearly see that something different now exists, that didn't exist at all before that point.

Determining that point is simple: terminating a life is not an issue, when nobody cares, including the life form itself.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Determining that point is simple: terminating a life is not an issue, when nobody cares, including the life form itself.

So it would be OK, with you, to kill a newborn infant? Or even a child, say a year old? As long as the child is too young to understand what death is, and what your intent to kill him would mean? One certainly cannot care about death, if one doesn't understand it. The point where a child can understand death, enough to care about any attempt to kill him, is certainly well beyond birth.

In fact, how would you define and determine the point at which a child has enough ability to understand and care about death to be endowed with the right not to be killed?

 

[RandFan]

I would go farther, of course. There is no moral difference between killing a newly-conceived human zygote, and killing a newborn infant...

One has a brain. The other doesn't.
One can feel pain. The other can't.
One can feel joy. The other can't.
One can feel fear. The other can't.
One can appreciate its existence. The other can't.

There is only one such point. That is conception. Before conception, you have two haploid gametes. (Actually, you have a bunch of them, but only two are going to actually be relevant.) After conception, you have a new diploid organism...

And? You say that as if it is profound. It's not.

There is no other magic point....

Human life is human life, sperm, egg, hair cells, blood cells, even cancer . It's a continuum. You are simply finding an arbitrary point that you think is important and then special pleading to justify your belief.

To the extent there is magic it's a brain, self awareness, the ability to feel joy and pain.

 

[falkowsi]

So it would be OK, with you, to kill a newborn infant? Or even a child, say a year old?

You need to read more accurately, and not ignore things I said, like "nobody cares".

Do you think in the case of a typical one year old, nobody cares if the child dies ?

 

[Bob Blaylock]

You need to read more accurately, and not ignore things I said, like "nobody cares".

Do you think in the case of a typical one year old, nobody cares if the child dies ?

Does the fact that someone else does or does not care about a particular person make that person any more or less a person?

Some crack whore who dumps her newborn baby in a garbage dumpster; is that baby less a human being than another baby, born at the same time into a loving family?

 

[falkowsi]

Does the fact that someone else does or does not care about a particular person make that person any more or less a person?

I don't think being "more" or "less" a person is relevant. Being "more" of a person (whatever that is supposed to mean), does not give any more rights.

The question is whether it is bad to kill someone. My point is straightforward. The more people care about a person, the more pain and distress is caused by the killing, and the worse it is. If nobody cares, not even the subject itself, then it's not bad.

 

[JJM 777]

The question is whether it is bad to kill someone. My point is straightforward. The more people care about a person, the more pain and distress is caused by the killing, and the worse it is. If nobody cares, not even the subject itself, then it's not bad.

This is approximately how I see it, too. That is why I would end the right to abortion at the moment when the parents bring the child into the society from the hospital, soon after birth -- that is when the society / local community becomes aware of having a new member.

I think you and I both agree that there is no moral difference between killing a newborn infant, and killing an infant that is still in the womb, but is soon to be born.

Correct.

I would go farther, of course. There is no moral difference between killing a newly-conceived human zygote, and killing a newborn infant, or a toddler, or an adolescent, or an adult, or an elderly person who is moments short of natural death. In all these cases, what you are killing is a human being.

Here we disagree.

Besides, this definition would make a woman with IUD (intra uterine device = conraceptive spiral) morally equal to a serial murderer, as her device would kill a fertilized egg cell every month or so. Also taking the regret pill would be equal to murder.

Do you think that women who have IUD are morally equal to serial murderers? Would the just punishment for them be the same how the legal system punishes serial killers? Life sentence? Death penalty?

 

[I Ratant]

The grown daughter of a friend was killed Friday at AV Hospital during an appendectomy when an artery was severed.
Lots of people care about this.

 

[RandFan]

The grown daughter of a friend was killed Friday at AV Hospital during an appendectomy when an artery was severed.
Lots of people care about this.

I've been to AV Hospital many times (I assume you mean Antelope Valley, right?). I'm sorry to hear that.

 

[Xero]

There is no line in the sand you can draw where something is "right", and then past that it's "wrong". Context and circumstances mean a lot in decisions like these. No 2 situations are identical.

 

[Cavemonster]

Where is the "None of my business unless it's my body" option?

The survey options continue through until after the child is born. Do you still consider it part of the woman's body after it's born? A year later?

 

[I Ratant]

Ever had your dad say "I brought you into this world, I can take you out!" ?

 

[JJM 777]

There is no line in the sand you can draw where something is "right", and then past that it's "wrong". Context and circumstances mean a lot in decisions like these. No 2 situations are identical.

Methinks it is better to have a clear legislation, so people know as exactly as possible what is permissible and what is not. Not to get a surprising 10 years prison sentence when the judge interprets that it was wrong what you believed to be right. Protects from corruption too, a bit.

 

[Nogbad]

LOL at the poll results

Some people have not been messiahs they have been very naughty.

 

[RandFan]

LOL at the poll results

Some people have not been messiahs they have been very naughty.

This is Sparta.