• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

When Does Abortion Become Wrong?

I voted for "abortion is never wrong".

For starters, I don't attach any special value to life just because it's human life. You could flush a billion fertilised eggs, and as far as I'm concerned there would be absolutely nothing immoral doing so.

A one month old newborn is not as smart, nor as capable of understanding and enjoying life as a rat. Given time it might turn into a morally significant being, and I certainly would never cause even such a trivial entity pain if I could avoid it, but if it dies I don't really care. Potential is not actuality, acorns aren't oak trees, and newborns aren't human beings in the special, morally important sense.

(Newborns are emotionally important to their parents, of course, just as teddy bears are emotionally important to kids).

As far as I'm concerned that's enough to settle the argument but even if newborns or fetuses were as important as proper people, as JJ Thomson pointed out back in 1971, that wouldn't give them the right to access their mother's body without her consent for nine months. Implantation is not a contract, and any time the mother wants to serve the blob with eviction papers as far as I can see she has a perfect right to do so.

There have been various feeble efforts to cook up some reason to endow the mother with a moral obligation to nourish an unwanted, unintelligent parasite but they all boil down to pretending that blobby little things count as people with the same rights as adult women.

To sum up: Fetuses aren't important for their own sake, and even if they were it would still be the woman's right to ditch them whenever they wanted.
 
Kevin_Lowe said:
There have been various feeble efforts to cook up some reason to endow the mother with a moral obligation to nourish an unwanted, unintelligent parasite but they all boil down to pretending that blobby little things count as people with the same rights as adult women.
Click to expand...

What about the cute blobby things?

BPSCG said:
Yeah, good luck trying to write "awwww" into a statute regulating abortion...
Click to expand...

It's the opposite of the "ewww!" behind the statues on criminalizing sodomy. If we can use "ewww!" as the basis for law, why not "awww!"? I'd say a good percentage of law is simply jargon covering visceral culturally-conditioned feelings.
 
BPSCG said:
Even when the fetus is 8-3/4 months along, and its birth would present no significant risk to the mother?
Click to expand...

Let's try to be provocative and say "why not"? Why can't the mother make that choice even at that late stage? If the baby doesn’t have an independent existence without her is it not just a part of her?



BTW, I think I understand what you mean by "potential life", but I also think it's a misnomer. I think almost everyone would agree that the thing growing inside the mother is a life from the moment of conception (Sagan went even further, claiming that life is a continuous process, IIRC); the issue is when does it become a human being, and when does it become a person? I believe from a legal standpoint, personhood doesn't happen until birth. But that embryo becomes a "human being" somewhere before birth, and I think it's that gray area that's so troublesome: when does the embryo become a "human being"? Whatever that is...
Click to expand...

I would disagree about the "life" definition, simply on the grounds that it isn’t a word we have an agreed upon definition anywhere. (Personally I don’t think that is surprising since "life" is just matter and energy interacting like everything else in the universe.)

Thinking about some of the definitions of “life” I would say the early embryo isn’t even alive in the sense a bacteria or amoeba is. It's nothing but some cells, granted it may have the potential to become a human being but that does not make it a human being.
 
Originally posted by Kevin_Lowe
As far as I'm concerned that's enough to settle the argument but even if newborns or fetuses were as important as proper people, as JJ Thomson pointed out back in 1971, that wouldn't give them the right to access their mother's body without her consent for nine months. Implantation is not a contract, and any time the mother wants to serve the blob with eviction papers as far as I can see she has a perfect right to do so.
Click to expand...

What if a mother wants to stop feeding her 1 year old baby because she can't be bothered, or because it is more convinient for her to kill the child than have to keep looking after it for many years? Do you make any distinction between a 8 3/4 month fetus and a 1 year old baby?
 
Kevin_Lowe said:

To sum up: Fetuses aren't important for their own sake, and even if they were it would still be the woman's right to ditch them whenever they wanted.
Click to expand...

They do have that right to ditch the kid. You can always give up your parental rights to the state. But killing the baby is different that ditching.

You can ditch your wife via a divorce, but you cant kill her. The wife is not your possession, neither is the child.
 
I believe it's always wrong. If you don't want to have a child keep the semen away from the eggs. DON'T HAVE SEX! It's not that hard. Ask yourself this, would you give up sex once to save a starving person in Africa? Think.
 
1inChrist said:
I believe it's always wrong. If you don't want to have a child keep the semen away from the eggs. DON'T HAVE SEX! It's not that hard.
Click to expand...
It isn't...?
Ask yourself this, would you give up sex once to save a starving person in Africa?
Click to expand...
No. Now what?

BTW, how did you vote?
 
1inChrist said:
Ask yourself this, would you give up sex once to save a starving person in Africa? Think.
Click to expand...

How would refraining from sex once save a starving African? On second thoughts, don't answer. Have you been reading this thread, or did you just jump in at the end? This is a more serious discussion. If you're just going to troll it up with nonsense, don't bother.
 
TragicMonkey said:
How would refraining from sex once save a starving African? On second thoughts, don't answer. Have you been reading this thread, or did you just jump in at the end? This is a more serious discussion. If you're just going to troll it up with nonsense, don't bother.
Click to expand...

What nonsense? It's a simple analogy that I thought a materialist fundamentalist would get.

Refrainging from sex once = saving innocent babie's life.

So my question is would you refrain from sex once to save a starving african child who's crying because their stomach hurts so bad from hunger and are feeling themselves die from lack of food? If so, why not do the same so a fetus doesn't have to get vaporized by doctors?
 
1inChrist said:
What nonsense? It's a simple analogy that I thought a materialist fundamentalist would get.

Refrainging from sex once = saving innocent babie's life.
Click to expand...

Um, no. If the sex in question is the sex that would have resulted in that innocent "babie's" life being created, refraining from that sex isn't saving life. It's preventing it. Surely even you can see the difference between saving something and causing it to never exist?

If the baby in question is not the baby that would have been conceived by the sex, then there is no causation. Whether Baby A, in North America, is born, aborted, or never conceived has nothing to do with the nutrition of Child B in Africa. I'm asking you if you hold otherwise, and explain how.


So my question is would you refrain from sex once to save a starving african child who's crying because their stomach hurts so bad from hunger and are feeling themselves die from lack of food? If so, why not do the same so a fetus doesn't have to get vaporized by doctors?
Click to expand...

Again, the parallel is nonsensical. Make a case for the food crisis in Africa being the result of birth rates in America.

Also, sex does not always mean conception. Ever hear of birth control? If you mean pregnancy, or birth, or abortion, say so. "Vaporized"? Do you think they use Death Rays?

I'll tell you the same thing I've told Patrick: you do your arguments and positions no service by choosing your words poorly. Inflammatory remarks and nutty vocabularly merely make you seem like a loony crank. If you want to debate seriously, be serious.
 
When Does Abortion Become Wrong?

I'm a guy and am not going to have an abortion, so it is none of my &*(%^ business.

It looks like most of the discussion so far is between guys. It is none of your ^$%%^* business either.
 
1inChrist said:
My analogy was right on the money as can be seen by you DODGING it.
Click to expand...

I suggest you read my long post on page 1 of this thread if you wish to see my opinion.

And you have yet to explain how an American baby being born or not born, aborted or not aborted, conceived or not conceived, has anything to do with starving people on another continent. I know you're not used to reasoning, and coming up with arguments, but do exert yourself. I'll even help you a little: you seem to be suggesting it has something to do with the world food supply. But in that case, abortions in North America would actually benefit starving Africans, because North America would have a lower food intake and thereby free up more supplies for Africa.

The only "money" your analogy is on seems to be in Confederate bills.
 
fishbob said:
When Does Abortion Become Wrong?

I'm a guy and am not going to have an abortion, so it is none of my &*(%^ business.

It looks like most of the discussion so far is between guys. It is none of your ^$%%^* business either.
Click to expand...

If an embryo is a life, and if it is a human being, and if it deserves the same protections and liberties as born human beings, then it does indeed concern men, as fellow members of the society.

Of course, you'd have to argue the first three conditions, which are all points of contention in the abortion debate. Whether the arguments hold water is a matter for debate, but if they do then men do indeed have valid reason to hold position. As do women who have not conceived.
 
fishbob said:
When Does Abortion Become Wrong?

I'm a guy and am not going to have an abortion, so it is none of my &*(%^ business.

It looks like most of the discussion so far is between guys. It is none of your ^$%%^* business either.
Click to expand...

My sentiments exactly.
 
I do not have children. Does that mean I shouldn't hold a position that child abuse is wrong? I don't own a home, either. Does that mean I shouldn't have an opinion on the abuse of eminent domain?
 
Your analogies are flawed.

Child abuse has victims. You can look at them and see injury. Eminent domain abuse takes property rights from victims in order to financially benefit other parties. You can see injury to the victims.

Abortion has conflicting interests between a current actual woman and a potential person. What if the group of cells develops, is born, and gains rights. What if the woman's health is at risk? There is no fair way to legislate 'what ifs', so guys especially need to butt out and let the women involved make their own decisions.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom