When Does Abortion Become Wrong?

[TragicMonkey]

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.

It's not a flawed analogy if you buy into the position that the clumps of cells are deserving of rights. That's the point of contention. If they do have rights, then the society as a whole has a vested interest in protecting them. If not, then it doesn't. You're just summing up the pro-choice position. That doesn't render the other side's argument irrelevant. You have to resolve the point of contention first--is the embryo a human being? If so, when did it become such? If so, does it merit protection or not? If not, why not?

 

[Tmy]

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 need a guy to get a women pregnant. So it is our biz. Plus its our biz when the kid is born and mommy wants child support.

the abortion issue affects everyone, not just women. Would you say women have no say in the draft, since only men are drafted??

 

[AWPrime]

You have to resolve the point of contention first--is the embryo a human being? [/B]

Anwser:

Abortion has conflicting interests between a current actual woman and a potential person.

Potential person is not human.

 

[TragicMonkey]

Anwser:

Potential person is not human.

Which is another point of contention.

The abortion debate will never reach consensus or agreement if both sides refuse challenges to their set definitions.

 

[Darat]

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?

I make the distinction that the 1 year old child has an independent existence away from the Mother whilst as a foetus it didn't.

That doesn’t mean I'm arguing for the baby to not have rights before the umbilical cord is cut just that a distinction could be argued for based on this idea of independent existence. To me this point of independent existence is the moment when the foetus becomes a baby, in other words a potential human being becomes a human being and therefore the mother no longer can determine if it continues to survive or not, it has rights as a human being.

 

[Grammatron]

I make the distinction that the 1 year old child has an independent existence away from the Mother whilst as a foetus it didn't.

That doesn’t mean I'm arguing for the baby to not have rights before the umbilical cord is cut just that a distinction could be argued for based on this idea of independent existence. To me this point of independent existence is the moment when the foetus becomes a baby, in other words a potential human being becomes a human being and therefore the mother no longer can determine if it continues to survive or not, it has rights as a human being.

There's not that much difference between 9 month and 1 year old and the baby depends on the mother just as much the only difference being that baby's location has move from inside to outside and the existence is far from independent.

 

[TragicMonkey]

I make the distinction that the 1 year old child has an independent existence away from the Mother whilst as a foetus it didn't.

That doesn’t mean I'm arguing for the baby to not have rights before the umbilical cord is cut just that a distinction could be argued for based on this idea of independent existence. To me this point of independent existence is the moment when the foetus becomes a baby, in other words a potential human being becomes a human being and therefore the mother no longer can determine if it continues to survive or not, it has rights as a human being.

But then you're stuck with more situations: premature births where the infant requires machines and care to survive. He's outside the mother, but can't survive on his own. And even a regularly born baby still depends on his mother. She's not allowed to kill him through neglect.

It looks to me like the soundest position is that the child does have rights, at least at some point in development, but his rights are trumped by his mother's rights over her own body. Once the baby is out of the body, the mother's choice no longer trumps the baby's rights. That's why I think the whole debate will only be resolved through technological achievement. When we can remove a fetus at any stage of development and nurture it to life, there will be no reason for the mother's rights to trump the child's.

 

[Darat]

There's not that much difference between 9 month and 1 year old and the baby depends on the mother just as much the only difference being that baby's location has move from inside to outside and the existence is far from independent.

Sorry for the confusion what I mean by "independence" is that it is not only the Mother that can sustain the child, a foetus requires the mother in a way a baby doesn’t. (Obviously a 1 year old can't fend for itself - well unless wolves or gorillas bring them up.)

 

[BPSCG]

It's not a flawed analogy if you buy into the position that the clumps of cells are deserving of rights. That's the point of contention. If they do have rights, then the society as a whole has a vested interest in protecting them. If not, then it doesn't. You're just summing up the pro-choice position. That doesn't render the other side's argument irrelevant. You have to resolve the point of contention first--is the embryo a human being? If so, when did it become such? If so, does it merit protection or not? If not, why not?

Y'know TM, I may have to re-evaluate my opinion of you, 'cuz you get so much correct here, almost enough to outweigh all the stuff you get wrong elsewhere

Seriously, you raise some hard questions, questions that need to be answered with more than just "It's murder!" / "It's a woman's right!" What rights does a fetus have? It doesn't count as a person in the census, so it obviously doesn't have the right to own property or things like that Does it have a right to its own life? If so, where does that right come from? Our founding documents claim the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness come from God; the less-devout would claim they come from the fact of your existence. But do you have to have been born to have the right to your own life? And if you don't have to have been born, then at what point did you obtain that right? Did you obtain it all of a sudden, or was it a right that became stronger as you gestated in the womb? Does an 8-month fetus have more rights than an 8-day one? What rights does the mother have that may conflict with your right to life? How do you decide which right takes precedence, if there's a conflict?

It's easy to dismiss the discussion with "We're guys, so it's none of our business." But to the extent that it makes us examine the nature of what our rights are, and how we treat the most helpless members of our society, both young and old, it's a discussion that involves all of us. Or should.

 

[Tmy]

It looks to me like the soundest position is that the child does have rights, at least at some point in development, but his rights are trumped by his mother's rights over her own body. Once the baby is out of the body, the mother's choice no longer trumps the baby's rights.

Since when do our body rights trumpet the rights of others?? Ifa baby is 9 mos, it is viable. Why should it not have rights just because mom is holding it prisoner.

You are not free to do anything you want with your body. You cant run around naked, sell organs, do drugs ect..

I say you draw a line at viability. One side abortion is legal, other side it is not.

 

[Darat]

But then you're stuck with more situations: premature births where the infant requires machines and care to survive. He's outside the mother, but can't survive on his own. And even a regularly born baby still depends on his mother. She's not allowed to kill him through neglect.

But the idea of "independence" does still work, the premature baby doesn't require the Mother so she can't any longer make the decision to destroy the foetus.

It looks to me like the soundest position is that the child does have rights, at least at some point in development, but his rights are trumped by his mother's rights over her own body. Once the baby is out of the body, the mother's choice no longer trumps the baby's rights. That's why I think the whole debate will only be resolved through technological achievement. When we can remove a fetus at any stage of development and nurture it to life, there will be no reason for the mother's rights to trump the child's.

I almost agree, I just define the moment of when the baby gets its rights to be when it doesn’t require the Mother. However once technically a Mother is no longer needed to gestate a foetus we will have a whole new set of problems to deal with. Damn this technology!

 

[BPSCG]

But the idea of "independence" does still work, the premature baby doesn't require the Mother so she can't any longer make the decision to destroy the foetus.

Then if we can save babies born prematurely at five months, it should be illegal to abort an unborn six-month-old?

 

[HarryKeogh]

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.

You need to do some serious introspection. One has an emotional bond to a newborn or is protective of a newborn's welfare not because it's capable of understanding but because it's a human being.

 

[Grammatron]

Sorry for the confusion what I mean by "independence" is that it is not only the Mother that can sustain the child, a foetus requires the mother in a way a baby doesn’t. (Obviously a 1 year old can't fend for itself - well unless wolves or gorillas bring them up.)

So you are of an opinion that as long as the baby's inside the mother it's her call on whether it lives or dies?

 

[Darat]

Then if we can save babies born prematurely at five months, it should be illegal to abort an unborn six-month-old?

In principle yes however practically I don't know enough. I do know there are already concerns about the long term health problems that very premature babies suffer from. It may be that although we could save a baby at 5 months it would end up being extremely disabled and then I am of the opinion that heroic measures are not in the best interest of the baby.

 

[Tmy]

Then if we can save babies born prematurely at five months, it should be illegal to abort an unborn six-month-old?

You can "save" an embryo if you wanted too. Thats different than viability. If it can live on its own then its viable. I dont mean feeding and all that, hell mom cant live on her own for long if you toss her neckid onto an icebarge. But she is viable. If baby doesnt depend on mom for basic life support (cant breath on its own) then thats about were you draw your line.

 

[Darat]

So you are of an opinion that as long as the baby's inside the mother it's her call on whether it lives or dies?

No, just as long as it requires the Mother to survive.

 

[TragicMonkey]

In principle yes however practically I don't know enough. I do know there are already concerns about the long term health problems that very premature babies suffer from. It may be that although we could save a baby at 5 months it would end up being extremely disabled and then I am of the opinion that heroic measures are not in the best interest of the baby.

Lol. You're walking into a minefield. Whenever people take this position, that it's better to be dead than severely disabled, the severely disabled take offense. It implies that their lives are not worth living, and makes them and their families rather touchy.

I won't deny that life can be terribly cruel and painful for some people, but I'm going to agree with Nietzsche* on this one: it's still worth living. If an individual decides otherwise, that's his choice...but that choice can't easily be delegated. The Spartans used to expose infants with any visible defect, like a club foot or a stunted arm or blindness.



*and since he suffered from terrible headaches, constant joint pain, and bleeding from the eyeballs due to syphilis, I think poor old Freddy had good cause to appreciate life's nastier side.

 

[Grammatron]

In principle yes however practically I don't know enough. I do know there are already concerns about the long term health problems that very premature babies suffer from. It may be that although we could save a baby at 5 months it would end up being extremely disabled and then I am of the opinion that heroic measures are not in the best interest of the baby.

What if the Sciences advances to the point of being able to raise a healthy baby from the point of sperm penatrating the egg, should abortion be illegal all together then?

 

[Tmy]

What if the Sciences advances to the point of being able to raise a healthy baby from the point of sperm penatrating the egg, should abortion be illegal all together then?

We're already there. Test Tube babies, invitro and all that. SUre you need a surregate, but who said science has to be limited to machines?