Abortion In The News

[toddjh]

So you oppose abortion for yourself personally, but favor abortions for others. That is still pro-abortion.

I don't favor abortions for others. In fact, I think abortions are a very poor solution 99% of the time. I took steps to make sure I never knocked anyone up, and other people should too.

However, I don't see how it's any of my business to tell people what they can and can't do with their own bodies when it doesn't affect anyone else (the fetus not yet being human).

So, am I pro-abortion too?

Jeremy

 

[Cain]

Good point. The funny thing is that the number of abortions dropped significantly after we got free abortion, and it has been dropping ever since.

True, but your abortion rate fell at the cost of socialism. A good God-fearing country like the United States would rather be washed in Red with the blood of dead babies.

________________________________

Toddjh: No one can agree on what counts as a "human being."

This is probably true as a descriptive statement; however, and this is my main objection to the previously mentioned Shermer book, when is a blastocyst/embryo/fetus not human? Any way you want to slice it (no pun intended), it's human. Now what's so important about a human blob of tissue? Why is it morally significant?

To me, the only relevant factor is whether the fetus should be considered different from any other animal, and as far as I can tell, what sets us apart from other animals is our brains. So, the criterion I would use for determining humanity is brain development. In fact, that's even better for you -- a fetus begins showing distinctly human-like brain activity at around 20 weeks, in most cases well before they would normally be considered viable.

Koko the gorilla apparently has similar abilities to that of a six year-old child. So shouldn't she have rights? What's so important about human thinking? Carl Sagan (w/ his wife) asks some of the right questions in his famous essay, but doesn't come close to answering them. You take a similar approach.

 

[Luke T.]

Actually, the purpose of the "rape or incest" gambit is not to suggest that is when most abortions happen, but rather to put the "abortion is murder" position holder in a tricky position. If abortion in indeed murder just like shooting someone on the street, then how can abortion in cases of rape or incest be permissible?

The "Abortion is Murder" proponent must either somehow either soften the claim or hold his/her ground and take the unpleasant but consistant position that these abortions are also murder. Unplesant as it will result in babies with severe birth defects, and also unplesant as it in effect allows a rapist to force a woman to carry his child.

The "abortion is murder" proponent can counter this gambit as far as "cases of rape" go, but the incest part is a bit dodgier, except that it largely becomes a euthenasia type argument where the difference of opinion bases itself in basic presumptions people hold about the nature and purpose of life.

So in the end this gambit, like most rhetorical gambits, only bear fruit or score points when used on the unwary. [/B]

Whether or not it is "murder" to kill a 2 week old fetus is up to each individual's belief system. However, as medical advances push the viability of a fetus farther and farther back, it becomes very hard to avoid the fact you are killing a baby at some point. And in my opinion, late term abortions are killing a baby. Murder.

But that doesn't matter to some pro-abortionists. For some reason, they are ok with killing a baby just because it isn't sucking air yet.

Haggling over incest and rape is akin to making the "one innocent man" argument to oppose the death penalty. It is a smokescreen. Better to just be plain about it and say a person is opposed to executing anyone, not just opposed to killing an innocent person. Because sooner or later, the technology will catch up with that little bugbear, too.

And I don't see what allowing a woman the choice of what to do with her body has to do with the Unborn Victims bill. If someone attacks a woman and kills the baby in her womb, that has nothing to do with her right to choose to have an abortion.

But if you realize that it is really all about being "pro-abortion" and not pro-choice, then it becomes obvious why the pro-abortion crowd is worried, because the Unborn Victims bill makes it clear that you are killing a baby and committing murder if you attack a woman and kill the baby. And the pro-abortion crowd can't afford for people to think that way about the unborn.

 

[Cleon]

I don't think most "pro-choice" people would favor suicide or drug legalization. That would be the Libertarian Party you are thinking of.

Favor it? No. Favor the right to choose one way or another? Yes. And I'm a Green, not a Libertarian.

So you oppose abortion for yourself personally, but favor abortions for others. That is still pro-abortion.

Well, being a guy, I can support or oppose it for myself, but somehow I don't think it really matters. (Yes, yes, I know: "Suppose you agree that he can't actually have babies, not having a womb, which is nobody's fault, not even the Romans', but that he can have the *right* to have babies.")

You can repeat "that is pro-abortion" as much as you like, but repitition does not make true. I don't favor or oppose abortions for others--I support their right to make that decision for themselves.

 

[toddjh]

Haggling over incest and rape is akin to making the "one innocent man" argument to oppose the death penalty. It is a smokescreen.

Suddenly has already explained to you why that's not true. The "rape and incest" argument is only meant to force an absolutist into one of two absurd positions: saying that abortion in the case of rape is not murder (which raises the question of why all the rest of the abortions are), or saying that abortion should not be allowed, even in cases of rape (thus giving a rapist that much more power over his victim).

It's not meant to be a real practical matter, but to try to get extremists to see some shades of gray.

Jeremy

 

[plindboe]

Exactly. It is murder either way.

M-W's definition of "murder":

1 : the crime of unlawfully killing a person especially with malice aforethought

"unlawfully"-> well, that depends on the abortion laws in the specific area.

"person"-> is a fetus a person? Does a fetus have a personality?

"malice"-> so abortion is made because of evil intentions?

Well, maybe you use another definition of murder.

 

[Abdul Alhazred]

Why is it that slippery slope arguments are fine in abortion discussions but are sort of taboo in gay marriage discussions?

I'm pro gay marriage, and I think slippery slope arguments are just fine, depending on application. It's called gradualism when you're in favor of the process.

So yes, getting people used to gay people being OK will eventually lead to sodomy laws being overturned (as it has). And maybe or maybe not gay marriage or even polygamy.

The kind of argument that irks me is "Then why can't I marry my dog?"

Similarly, the dividing line in the abortion issue is that partial birth abortion might very well lead to infanticide, but need not.

I'm not sure what they are getting at with the fetal crime victim business. To me the solution is to increase the penalties for battery all around.

 

[CFLarsen]

True, but your abortion rate fell at the cost of socialism. A good God-fearing country like the United States would rather be washed in Red with the blood of dead babies.

Not to derail this thread, but Denmark isn't a socialist country. It's a mix of market economy and socialdemocratic ideas.

 

[Abdul Alhazred]

Almost 60% more abortions per capita in the US than Denmark.

Why so many in the US? We have completely free abortion here, have had it for 30 years. Add to that, a much more relaxed attitude towards sex.

Shouldn't it be the other way around? Perhaps an example to follow?

Likely your birth control education is better.

 

[Luke T.]

M-W's definition of "murder":



"unlawfully"-> well, that depends on the abortion laws in the specific area.

To many people, there is a higher Law than the law of where they live.

"person"-> is a fetus a person? Does a fetus have a personality?

Does someone who is sleeping have a personality? Does someone in a coma? A chicken has a personality, but I can still kill it.

"malice"-> so abortion is made because of evil intentions?

To kill someone to escape financial hardship. Is that evil or not?

 

[plindboe]

To many people, there is a higher Law than the law of where they live.

I don't think M-W had moral laws in mind in that definition. That aside, the higher law is not absolute.

Does someone who is sleeping have a personality? Does someone in a coma? A chicken has a personality, but I can still kill it.

Does a fetus of 8 cells have a personality?

To kill someone to escape financial hardship. Is that evil or not?

You say "someone". Again the personality issue.

 

[Tmy]

I like it when people are against abortion but are ok with the death penalty. Make up your mind, are you for taking life or not!

 

[CFLarsen]

Likely your birth control education is better.

Perhaps. I would also venture a guess about the attitude towards sex, as well as women's liberation. Freedom of choice is certainly also a decisive factor.

To many people, there is a higher Law than the law of where they live.

You are probably right. Does that mean we should accept that the legal law is put aside by what some people consider a "higher" law?

 

[Luke T.]

I don't think M-W had moral laws in mind in that definition. That aside, the higher law is not absolute.

Does a fetus of 8 cells have a personality?



You say "someone". Again the personality issue.

That was your definition of a person. Since you refer to Merriam-Webster, here is their definition:

1 : HUMAN, INDIVIDUAL -- sometimes used in combination especially by those who prefer to avoid man in compounds applicable to both sexes

Here is one of M-W's definition of Child:

1a : an unborn or recently born person

So abortion can be murder.

 

[Luke T.]

You are probably right. Does that mean we should accept that the legal law is put aside by what some people consider a "higher" law?

I suppose that is the justification some abortion doctor killers use. I don't.

But there are people who believe the drug laws are wrong. Does that mean they can put the legal law aside? Does it mean they have to "accept" it? In their case, they do, because to break that law is to risk jail.

To oppose the abortion law doesn't mean you will be breaking the law by NOT getting an abortion.

 

[CFLarsen]

Luke,

You're not going to pull a "Paul Revere" on me, are you?

When is it justified to put ourselves about the law? Or others, who may not agree with us? Isn't that what you are getting at?

 

[Troll]

I'm pro-abortion. I'm also pro-choice because my allowance of choice doesn't stop at abortion. I'm rather tired of the left leaning people in favor of abortions tendancy to be against other choices.

That said, I've read the bill and think the critics like Feinstein are just playing politics as usual with the Unborn victims bill. If I recall correctly her state has something similar in effect where they define anything above 7 weeks old in the womb getting killed as murder. The bill being discussed in the senate uses the words "any stage of human development". It also clearly states that it does not pertain to abortion.

As for the late term abortions. They are still allowed at the time of delivery in case of complications that could result in harm or death to the mother. I've never had an issue with that. But anyone that has been carrying the thing inside for a period of time that birth can be done and just changes their mind at that point I can't agree with.

 

[plindboe]

That was your definition of a person. Since you refer to Merriam-Webster, here is their definition:

1 : HUMAN, INDIVIDUAL -- sometimes used in combination especially by those who prefer to avoid man in compounds applicable to both sexes

Person, human, individual, a couple of cells is none of these. It can of course be debated at what point it actually is.

Here is one of M-W's definition of Child:

1a : an unborn or recently born person

When you quote M-W it's best to mention all the significant definitions. 1a is probably only used in anti abortion circles, while 2a is the common understanding of the word: "2 a : a young person especially between infancy and youth"

So abortion can be murder.

You didn't show it was unlawful. You didn't show it was a person. You didn't show it was intended with malice. So your conclusion is still baseless.

 

[Luke T.]

Luke,

You're not going to pull a "Paul Revere" on me, are you?

When is it justified to put ourselves about the law? Or others, who may not agree with us? Isn't that what you are getting at?

Not at all. Plindboe was just playing around with the dictionary and that is when the law came up. My opinion is that sometimes we can disagree with the law and the dictionary. I suppose I could look up M-W's definition of "law" while I'm at it, but he probably is already unhappy with their definition of "child" and "person" since that disagrees with what he had defined a person as.

I think a fetus is a human being from the moment of conception, and that is the extreme, I admit.

But I think it is not extreme at all to ask people to consider that a second or third trimester fetus is a child. A human being. And I get very passionate about how I feel about women choosing to execute those children. I think the 1.3 million abortions annually has successfully set it in people's minds they are not killing kids because the sheer scale of it is too horrible to contemplate any other way than that it must be just scraping some useless tissue from their bodies.

For a woman who has had an abortion in her second or third trimester, it is inconceivably difficult to face the reality that she has killed a baby. And so this mad clutching at straws over the Unborn Victims bill.

I think their consciences should be pricked. I worry about the erosion of conscience a lot. It has brought about a holocaust.

 

[toddjh]

But I think it is not extreme at all to ask people to consider that a second or third trimester fetus is a child. A human being. And I get very passionate about how I feel about women choosing to execute those children. I think the 1.3 million abortions annually has successfully set it in people's minds they are not killing kids because the sheer scale of it is too horrible to contemplate any other way than that it must be just scraping some useless tissue from their bodies.

I think their consciences should be pricked. I worry about the erosion of conscience a lot. It has brought about a holocaust.

Well, now you're conflating all abortions with second- and third-trimester abortions. According to the CDC, only 1.4 percent of abortions occurred after the first trimester. That lowers the number of "human" deaths to under 20,000, assuming you use a conservative estimate and consider a fetus to be a human being right at the beginning of the second trimester.

That's still a lot of deaths, yes, and I am as strongly against late-term abortions as you are. But I think throwing around numbers like "1.3 million" on one hand and then at the same time talking about the Unborn Victims bill, which would only deal with a tiny fraction of that number, is pretty disingenuous. I'd also like to see what percentage of those late-term abortions really are performed to save the life/health of the mother, but I can't find any data offhand. Out of curiosity, do you oppose abortions in cases where carrying the child to term has a significant chance of killing the mother?

Jeremy