Abortion

[ebola]

Yahzi wrote:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
However, life is very precious.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


That's the problem - it's not. Human life, like evertything else, obeys the laws of economics. It's value is inversely related to it's rarity.

In a sense, you are right. With a world population of 6 billion plus, human life, collectively, is cheap. How many wars have there been in just the last three hundred years where we have casually thrown away countless human lives?

However, an individual human is unique, priceless, and irreplaceable. Why else do we grieve when we lose those closest to us?

Eric

 

[Thanz]

Thanz

Under what conditions do I have the right to make use of your internal organs for 9 months?

Blatant strawman. Pregnancy is unique, that much is obvious. Why are you asking me if there is something like pregnancy?

Yet the fetus has the right to infringe on your rights?

Who set up the right-trumping game? It's a simple question: do you have the right to make use of my internal organs. No? Then end of story: I don't care what rights of yours are violated in the process of protecting my rights. That's not my problem.

If I created you through my behaviour, and knew that you would rely on my internal organs for a period of time, then yes - you do have a right to use them. And you always have to care what rights of mine are violated in protecting yours - that is part of being in society.

You agree that we have rights; you just want to take them away when you feel sorry for somebody else. Hey, I'm all down for socialism, but shouldn't we be trumping our rights for the people that already exist?

No, not about feeling sorry for someone. It is about protecting their right to live. And when you say "people that already exist", you ignore the assumption that is the heart of the debate: that fetuses ARE people and they DO exist. If one takes that assumption, there is no difference between the fetus and yourself. I know that you don't think that the fetus is a person. What I am challenging is your assertion that it doesn't matter if the fetus is a person.

In this single paragraph is everything I said. Look at the tone of this and tell me it's not about punishing those fornicating sluts.

Come down off your high horse, Yahzi. I said nothing about fornicating sluts or punishment. It is about, however, taking responsibility for one's actions. As you have said, the man has to take responsibility. So does the woman. Please also keep in mind that these arguments are premised on the idea that the fetus is a person.

1. It's not just pain, you idiot, it's actual danger. Pregnancy is dangerous. Life-threatening. I suggest you avoid dismissing pregnancy as an "inconvience" in the prescence of women, unless you particularly enjoy being clobbered.

I didn't dismiss it as "inconvenience". It is painful. It is risky. It is also quite inconvenient. If you have a stronger word for inconvenience (in terms of the "Do's" and "Do-Nots" of pregnancy) I'll gladly use it. But to suggest that every pregnancy is life-threatening is baloney, and you know it. If every pregnancy were such high risk, how did we survive as a species?

In any event, all of the risks of a normal pregnancy do not outweigh the certain death of the child (again, remember we are assuming that the fetus is a person).

2. Chose to engage in behaviour? If you go skiing, can the doctor not treat your broken leg because you chose to engage in risky behaviour? Maybe you wish less women would choose to have sex with you. That's fine, but let them make their own choices about me, ok?

False analogy. How is a broken leg like a pregnancy? How is killing a person "treatment"? If a doctor had a choice between fixing my leg and saving the life of another, which do you think she should choose?

3. Morally innocent? Who cares? Since when did moral innocence gain you the right to trump my rights? There are billions of poor people who are morally innocent, but I don't see you asking the courts to give them your property.

All right, maybe this was a bit extreme on my part. The point is, the fetus had no choice in the matter. The mother did.

Sure they do. But even if it were, it doesn't justify their position. It provides emotional support ("won't somebody think of the children!"), but it provides no logical support. This is exactly what you would expect from a diversionary position.

I don't care about their overt propaganda. I care about what they are really after.

I think that we should just agree to disagree on this point. It is irrelevant to the rest of the arguments I am making.

Q-Source

I don't think Abortion is a matter of deciding when the fetus is a person or not. What makes a fetus a person?
How can we measure his consciousness?, or his soul (if we have souls)?

Abortion has to do with women's rights and economics (as Yazhi mentioned). Ultimately, anti-abortionists don't care about the consequences that represent to raise un-wanted children in a world with limited resouces.

Abortion only has to do with women's rights and economics once you have decided that the fetus is not a person. Whether (and I suppose when) the fetus is considered a "person" with the same human rights as everyone else is the central issue in the debate.

Do you think that a mother has the right to leave a child to die on the delivery room floor? For personal determination or economic reasons? If not, then we need to decide when that baby is considered a human. Is it conception? Viability? only after birth? at some other point in the process? This cut off point is essential.

 

[Akots]

Yahzi

The issue is wether killing a fetus has the same existential consequences as killing a concious human.

Also, i find your "cheap" view of human life to be rather ludicrous. Our population is the standard to which all our resources are judged in value. Having twice as much food as we do people does not make people cheap; it makes food expensive.

I'm curious. Would you be more interested in supporting abortions, or more advanced means of supporting a larger population on an existing ecology?

 

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by Akots ..snip

Having twice as much food as we do people does not make people cheap; it makes food expensive.

Abortion issue asside, this confuses me..

 

[Akots]

What i'm saying is, which would you rather do to relieve overpopulation; kill off or sterilize humans, or improve the environment to support more of us?

That's hopelessley idealistic, though... and counter productive. Wether you kill humans or invent a better way to make food and houses, you arent adressing the problem of overpopulaiton itself.

It also has nothign t odo with the issue at hand... musta let my mind wander, and forgot to tie it up in the yard..

 

[Skeptical Greg]

What i'm saying is, which would you rather do to relieve overpopulation; kill off or sterilize humans, or improve the environment to support more of us?

That's hopelessley idealistic, though... and counter productive. Wether you kill humans or invent a better way to make food and houses, you arent adressing the problem of overpopulaiton itself.

It also has nothign t odo with the issue at hand... musta let my mind wander, and forgot to tie it up in the yard..

I was trying to understand how " too much " food would make it more expensive.. I thought the opposite was true.

I understand the point you are trying to make though ( think I do ), but I can't imagine a woman deciding to have an abortion because she is worried about the food supply.

 

[toddjh]

Jeremy,

I don't think Abortion is a matter of deciding when the fetus is a person or not. What makes a fetus a person? How can we measure his consciousness?, or his soul (if we have souls)?

Since I see no evidence of souls, I don't propose measuring them. What we do see, however, is evidence of brain activity. It seems reasonable, provisionally, to suggest that a fetus develops human-like awareness when its brain activity starts resembling that of a human being as opposed to an animal. This has been measured, and found to take place at about the end of the first trimester.

Abortion has to do with women's rights and economics (as Yazhi mentioned).

I disagree. If you don't consider a fetus a human being at any stage of pregnancy, maybe. But the contention that some miraculous event happens at the moment of birth that transforms a fetus into a human being is just as laughable as the anti-abortionists' assertion that the magic moment occurs at conception.

Ultimately, anti-abortionists don't care about the consequences that represent to raise un-wanted children in a world with limited resouces.

No argument there. Once again, I am not an anti-abortionist, and I'm not defending the majority of them.

Jeremy

 

[Akots]

I was trying to understand how " too much " food would make it more expensive.. I thought the opposite was true.

I understand the point you are trying to make though ( think I do ), but I can't imagine a woman deciding to have an abortion because she is worried about the food supply.

Oog... me no type gooder.

I just realized I said it the other way around... grievous typo.

Also, that's not fully what i meant... if a woman has only barely as much food, money, oxygen, or other material wealth as she needs to survive on her own, then she cannot afford a child. A 15 year old pregnant girl living on her own can arguably not support herself without outside assistance. Not easily, at least.

 

[Q-Source]

Since I see no evidence of souls, I don't propose measuring them. What we do see, however, is evidence of brain activity. It seems reasonable, provisionally, to suggest that a fetus develops human-like awareness when its brain activity starts resembling that of a human being as opposed to an animal. This has been measured, and found to take place at about the end of the first trimester.

So, brain activity makes a fetus a human being?

I disagree. If you don't consider a fetus a human being at any stage of pregnancy, maybe. But the contention that some miraculous event happens at the moment of birth that transforms a fetus into a human being is just as laughable as the anti-abortionists' assertion that the magic moment occurs at conception.

I don't see why it is so hard to believe that a human being is born when he gets out of the mother's body.

Of course, I don't support any abortion in the last months of pregnancy. It is immoral rather than criminal.

Let's assume for a moment that the fetus is a human. Now, the question is whether or not the woman has the right to get rid of a human that she no longer wants to carry in his body.

Does she have the right to say no?

It would be a matter of deciding who has more rights:
1. the fetus/human to live or
2. the woman to not accept the pregnancy.


Q-S

 

[toddjh]

So, brain activity makes a fetus a human being?

I think that's a good place to start, yes. Feel free to disagree.

I don't see why it is so hard to believe that a human being is born when he gets out of the mother's body.

How is a baby that has just been born different from a baby that is five minutes away from birth? That's what I meant when I talked about a "miraculous event." It seems to me that the only significant difference is that after birth the baby is no longer inside the woman's body. When considering whether the fetus/baby is a human being with human rights, why is it relevant where it is located?

Of course, I don't support any abortion in the last months of pregnancy. It is immoral rather than criminal.

Well, morality (or rather, ethics) is all I was talking about. Legality is too complex and arbitrary for my tastes.

Let's assume for a moment that the fetus is a human. Now, the question is whether or not the woman has the right to get rid of a human that she no longer wants to carry in his body.

Does she have the right to say no?

It would be a matter of deciding who has more rights:
1. the fetus/human to live or
2. the woman to not accept the pregnancy.

Like Yahzi, I think you are ignoring a crucial issue: abortion is not simply a matter of the woman's body -- it is also traumatic to the fetus's body. Causing bodily harm (not to mention death) to a human's body is a crime, and is certainly unethical. If you assume that the fetus can be considered a human being, as you suggest above, doesn't the same apply?

Read about abortion procedures, and ask yourself whether the actions performed on the fetus (completely apart from the actions performed on the woman, such as dilating the cervix, etc.) would be considered criminal if performed on a post-birth baby.

As for whether the woman's desire to not accept the pregnancy is more important than the fetus's life, why does this end at birth? Why could you not use this argument for "retroactive" abortions? "Oh, I decided not to accept my child. That overrides his right to live." It's the same as before: I understand that many people consider birth to be some kind of transforming event. What I don't understand is why.

Jeremy

 

[Thanz]

Let's assume for a moment that the fetus is a human. Now, the question is whether or not the woman has the right to get rid of a human that she no longer wants to carry in his body.

Does she have the right to say no?

It would be a matter of deciding who has more rights:
1. the fetus/human to live or
2. the woman to not accept the pregnancy.


Q-S

Q-Source -

This has been my point in my posts above. If I assume that the fetus is a human, and I do the balance of rights that you propose, I come out in favour of the life of the human fetus. Yahzi seems to come out in favour of the right of the woman to not accept the pregnancy.

I am curious - where do you come out, if the assumption is made that the fetus is a human life?

 

[Akots]

Conciousness alone is not the end all and be all of a human being. If one assumes that a human soul generates conciousness somehow after the body has matured, is it then unreasonable to assume that the earliest point a soul could exist would be the insemination of the egg?

This obviously doesn't prove the existance of a soul in the first place. But it does suggest that if you believe in a soul, it would not be unreasonable to want to protect an inseminated egg as though it were a mature human being.

 

[toddjh]

This obviously doesn't prove the existance of a soul in the first place. But it does suggest that if you believe in a soul, it would not be unreasonable to want to protect an inseminated egg as though it were a mature human being.

I agree. My issue with those people is two things:

1. Belief in the soul without evidence is irrational.

2. Most of them don't appear interested in promoting things that would make abortions unnecessary in the first place.

Jeremy

 

[Q-Source]

I think that's a good place to start, yes. Feel free to disagree.

I disagree. To me, a fetus becomes a human being when he gets out of the mother's body.

How is a baby that has just been born different from a baby that is five minutes away from birth? That's what I meant when I talked about a "miraculous event." It seems to me that the only significant difference is that after birth the baby is no longer inside the woman's body. When considering whether the fetus/baby is a human being with human rights, why is it relevant where it is located?

5 minutes away from birth makes a huge difference.
Anyway, you are taking the discussion to the extremes. Nobody is suggesting that a woman should abort 5 minutes before giving birth.

The localition of the fetus matters a lot. That's why we have to take into account the decision of the woman to let another organism to use her body for 9 months.

Like Yahzi, I think you are ignoring a crucial issue: abortion is not simply a matter of the woman's body -- it is also traumatic to the fetus's body. Causing bodily harm (not to mention death) to a human's body is a crime, and is certainly unethical. If you assume that the fetus can be considered a human being, as you suggest above, doesn't the same apply?

It is traumatic to the fetus body? how do you know?
A two month fetus is conscious? Can it feel pain?

If the fetus is a human during all the pregnancy, then I don't have an answer to your question. I just can say that society would give more preference to his right to live than the mother's right to end the pregnancy.

As for whether the woman's desire to not accept the pregnancy is more important than the fetus's life, why does this end at birth?

Because by my definition (and the law definition), a person is born when the mother gives birth. As such, he has rights.

Why could you not use this argument for "retroactive" abortions? "Oh, I decided not to accept my child. That overrides his right to live." It's the same as before: I understand that many people consider birth to be some kind of transforming event. What I don't understand is why.

Maybe because one second after the baby is born, he can live outside his mother's body. He doesn't belong anymore to her.

Q

 

[Akots]

I agree. My issue with those people is two things:

1. Belief in the soul without evidence is irrational.

True, it is a matter of faith; as is belief that souls do not or can not exist. The fact that no evidence suggests either way lends one to make a personal decision. This decision either gives a potential soul the benefit of the doubt, or it denies even the possability of a soul.

Do we go the moral way, and assume thefetus is alive untill we prove otherwise? or do we go the materialistic way, and say that lack evidence for a soul does not make an inseminated egg a human being?

2. Most of them don't appear interested in promoting things that would make abortions unnecessary in the first place.

Jeremy

I think I may have put my finger on the source of this issue... the assumption there prooves that they bdo not believe young humans are capable of being responsible with their bodies.

I expect they just want to control that aspect of their lives; among others.

 

[Q-Source]

This has been my point in my posts above. If I assume that the fetus is a human, and I do the balance of rights that you propose, I come out in favour of the life of the human fetus. Yahzi seems to come out in favour of the right of the woman to not accept the pregnancy.

I am curious - where do you come out, if the assumption is made that the fetus is a human life?

It is a difficult question to me if we consider that a fetus is a human being.

Personally, I would still go for the women's right to say no to a person that wants to use her body for 9 months.

What would be the future for that unwanted child?
Why we should force women that are uncapable emotional and economically of raising children?

Q-S

 

[toddjh]

5 minutes away from birth makes a huge difference.
Anyway, you are taking the discussion to the extremes. Nobody is suggesting that a woman should abort 5 minutes before giving birth.

If you consider it the same as aborting a fetus 6 weeks in, why not? It seems to me that intuitively you do consider fetal development significant, but are unwilling to articulate that.

The localition of the fetus matters a lot.

Yes, I understand that many people feel that way. What I want to know is why. What's so special about those hours of labor that suddenly transforms the fetus into a person and turns the woman into a mother? Labor is simply a biological function. It's a rather extreme one, to be sure, but what is it about those muscle contractions that changes the situation so dramatically?

It is traumatic to the fetus body? how do you know?
A two month fetus is conscious? Can it feel pain?

I meant traumatic in a physical sense; abortion causes injuries to the fetus's body that would be considered assault and/or murder if done to a person with legal rights. It was you who suggested assuming, for the sake of argument, that a fetus can be considered a human being at some stage of pregnancy, and I was going along with it.

As for whether the fetus is conscious, I suggested 12 weeks as a dividing line because that's the figure I've heard several places. I fully admit I'm not familiar with all the details; a med student friend just told me it's likely to be somewhat later than that. So, until further information is available, I acknowledge that the dividing line is not yet entirely clear, and let's try to stick to the hypothetical.

If the fetus is a human during all the pregnancy, then I don't have an answer to your question. I just can say that society would give more preference to his right to live than the mother's right to end the pregnancy.

I agree, and that's why I believe more emphasis should be placed on what exactly constitutes a human being. If women want an abortion, I would also like it if doctors suggested doing it as early as possible, just in case. We should also be doing everything we can to prevent the need for abortions in the first place -- regardless of the fetus, the procedure is very painful and traumatic to the women, and that's not the kind of thing that should be routine.

Because by my definition (and the law definition), a person is born when the mother gives birth. As such, he has rights.

Well, like I said, I'm not concerned about legal definitions. The law is bloated, based on a lot of questionable assumptions, and quite often wrong. I'm only thinking in ethical terms.

Maybe because one second after the baby is born, he can live outside his mother's body. He doesn't belong anymore to her.

I still don't see what's so special about being able to live outside her body. Suppose I had a conjoined twin with a malformed heart, who required the use of my heart to live. Does he "belong" to me? Would I have the right to detach him from me, knowing that his death would certainly result?

Yahzi, if you're reading this, there's an example of a situation where a person might be compelled to allow another to use his organs.

Jeremy

 

[Akots]

I disagree. To me, a fetus becomes a human being when he gets out of the mother's body.

I can only assume you mean, when it survives on it's own. Leave a baby in a crib for a month, unsupervised, and it will not last long.

5 minutes away from birth makes a huge difference.
Anyway, you are taking the discussion to the extremes. Nobody is suggesting that a woman should abort 5 minutes before giving birth.

I was born rather prematurely, myself... by a great deal more than just 5 minutes, as well.

The localition of the fetus matters a lot. That's why we have to take into account the decision of the woman to let another organism to use her body for 9 months.

You know how when you open one of those CDs from Microsoft, it says "opening this package constitutes the agreement with the specified terms" or some such?

Isn't that what having sex is like? Signing on the dotted line?

What other use does sex have, exactly?

It is traumatic to the fetus body? how do you know?
A two month fetus is conscious? Can it feel pain?

Pain is irellevant. A numb human can feel no pain. Are you even concerned about the physiological capabilities that allow a human being to understand something as arbitrary as pain?

If the fetus is a human during all the pregnancy, then I don't have an answer to your question. I just can say that society would give more preference to his right to live than the mother's right to end the pregnancy.

Unfortunately, that's the tough question... one i doubt can ever be answered empiricaly.

Because by my definition (and the law definition), a person is born when the mother gives birth. As such, he has rights.

Well... technically, I was never born; I was surgically removed from my mother by cesarian section. Guess I have no rights then...

Maybe because one second after the baby is born, he can live outside his mother's body. He doesn't belong anymore to her.
Q

MAY I REMIND certain persons that as a premature birth, I had an intraveinous tube stuck in my head... no other veins in my body were big enough to support an intraveinous tube. I. Would. Have. died. AND YET... I was already out of my mother's womb. Fancy that.

I do expect a response, either telling me a) how i could have survived premature birth without special treatment, or b) if I was technicaly only a human being after I was taken off life support. or perhaps only after I stopped nursing? Or after I started walking on my own? Or perhaps only after I finished going to school?

 

[Thanz]

It is a difficult question to me if we consider that a fetus is a human being.

Personally, I would still go for the women's right to say no to a person that wants to use her body for 9 months.

What would be the future for that unwanted child?
Why we should force women that are uncapable emotional and economically of raising children?

Q-S

Q-S: For the entirety of this post, I have made the assumption that the fetus is a human life.

Emotions and economics are irrelevant if the fetus is a human life.

In another thread, you said this:

We still call “capital punishment” to a vile act of killing another human being.

From this, I infer that you are against capital punishment. Why then would you impose it on an unborn child? Surely you would agree with me that some criminals have done far worse things to people than pregnancy does to a woman. If those people are not to be killed, why should the unborn child?

How do you morally justify the killing of a child so that the woman can have a choice as to whether to continue the pregnancy? Isn't death far worse than anything that happens to a woman during a normal pregnancy? And if the two are equal moral agents, why impose the far worse penalty?

 

[toddjh]

True, it is a matter of faith; as is belief that souls do not or can not exist. The fact that no evidence suggests either way lends one to make a personal decision. This decision either gives a potential soul the benefit of the doubt, or it denies even the possability of a soul.

Do we go the moral way, and assume the fetus is alive untill we prove otherwise?

Two things. First, I don't think anyone is arguing that the fetus isn't alive; the point of contention is whether the fetus is human.

Second, I disagree that that's the morally (or ethically) correct choice. We can use "faith" to justify any of a billion mutually contradictory positions. I could propose the existence of "air fairies," and say that you kill one every time you take a breath -- do you stop breathing? That's just as rational as suggesting the existence of souls without evidence. Our choice is either to stick to things we can observe and measure in the real world, or be stuck, paralyzed out of fear that every single action we take will harm some hypothetical being.

The rest of your post I agree with.

Jeremy