Sensitive Question About Abortion

[In My Memory]

I was thinking about the different ways people have tried to justify abortion. And, it occurred to me that there is a strange justication for pro-choice that goes something like "its her body, her choice" and "the unborn person is not a life".

 

I dont think people reason consistently about this. For instance, while there is a sharp divide between people who believe in "her body, her choice", almost everyone agrees that alcohol abuse during pregnancy is a very very bad thing.

 

So, it makes me wonder how people can justify the simultaneous belief that the unborn person is not a life for the first 6 months (implying that its not morally valuable or cannot be harmed) and the prohibition on women using alcohol at any time while pregnant.

 

I'm certain there is a very logical reason for opposing pregnant women drinking, and I bet these reasons will probably look a lot like pro-life explanations for opposing abortion.

 

 

Just a thought that suddenly came to me, and I wanted to throw it out in the open for discussion.

[AzurePhoenix]

Well, the way I see it, there is at least a smidgeon of humanity in abortion, however misguided many or most cases may be, whereas beer-babies are often condemned to a lifetime of FAS (a potential for nervous system problems, deformity, growth problems, as well as intellectual and social problems, etc etc). I see it as negligence and abuse.

[BenSon]

I think its somewhere along the lines of.

The foetus should not be exposed to alcohol because while not yet a person, will become one soon, and then the damage is done to a person. But the mother is only at fault for drinking while pregnent after the foetus is classified as a person not before.

 

~Scott

[atinymonkey]

I was thinking about the different ways people have tried to justify abortion.

For me, it goes like this - A girl does not need to justify her abortion to me, because it's not my business. It arrogant to presume otherwise. However, if someone is torturing a child then that is my business. It's my business then because the child is part of humanity, and any damage done to one member of humanity lessens us all. No man is an island, and all that.

[SorceressPol]

I think its somewhere along the lines of.

The foetus should not be exposed to alcohol because while not yet a person' date=' will become one soon, and then the damage is done to a person. But the mother is only at fault for drinking while pregnent after the foetus is classified as a person not before.

 

~Scott[/quote']

 

I'm confused. So, the mother is allowed to drink until the foetus is considered a person. How long does that take? From responses on a similar thread about abortion, some of the guys here stated that they didn't consider a baby a person until the umbilical cord was cut. I think that would be a little too late.

[Aardvark]

I think the distinction is that a foetus subjected to alcohol abuse will go on to suffer when it is born and for the rest of its life. Whereas a foetus that is aborted will not go on to suffer in later life. They are two different moral concerns.

 

 

 

For me, it goes like this - A girl does not need to justify her abortion to me[/i'], because it's not my business. It arrogant to presume otherwise. However, if someone is torturing a child then that is my business. It's my business then because the child is part of humanity, and any damage done to one member of humanity lessens us all. No man is an island, and all that.

 

I'm not entirely sure i understand you here. It's not your business if a woman aborts a foetus but it is your business if a woman tortures a baby?

 

Is that because you do not consider a foetus to be an individual in its own right and thus part of 'humanity'? And at what point do you consider a foetus does entail the rights and becomes your business. Only after birth or at some late stage of the pregnancy?

[atinymonkey]

Is that because you do not consider a foetus to be an individual in its own right and thus part of 'humanity'?

Yes. That's just what I was saying. Babies are not human' date=' they are the souls of aliens who died eons ago on the earth.

 

And at what point do you consider a foetus does entail the rights and becomes your business. Only after birth or at some late stage of the pregnancy?

Some Doctors assert that cognitive thought process being at the third trimester, and usually at that point the becomes a child. Others insist it's during the second. I don't intend to be pulled into a debate about the precise second during pregnancy when a fetus becomes a child.

 

My point is, an abortion is intended to end the potential life of a child. I have no opinion on that, I don't see it as any of my business any more than I see it my business to ensure you personally never wear a condom. However, alcohol during pregnancy is damaging a fetus that will become a child and an eventual member of humanity. That's the part where it becomes society's business, humanity's business, as it's one person abusing another (abet abuse in advance of birth).

[Douglas]

My point is' date=' an abortion is intended to end the [i']potential[/i] life of a child. I have no opinion on that, I don't see it as any of my business any more than I see it my business to ensure you personally never wear a condom. However, alcohol during pregnancy is damaging a fetus that will become a child and an eventual member of humanity. That's the part where it becomes society's business, humanity's business, as it's one person abusing another (abet abuse in advance of birth).

Yep, it sure does make a lot of sense to me..let's see now, damaged fetus becomes a child...your business...........Damaged fetus executed, not your business. OK.

[BenSon]

I'm confused. So, the mother is allowed to drink until the foetus is considered a person. How long does that take? From responses on a similar thread about abortion, some of the guys here stated that they didn't consider a baby a person until the umbilical cord was cut. I think that would be a little too late.

Well thats the personal chioce, when exactly does a foetus become a person? But by applying what i said to any view of how late you can have a abortion it is consistant with pro abortion views. Eg

Lets say for arguments sake that abortions are legal for the first six months (I'm not sure of the laws where everybody lives but just used this as an example) Now if the foetus is not considered to be a person until it is six months old then for some people it is moraly justifiable to have an abortion. So if you drink alcohol while the foetus is pre six months your not doing anything wrong until it becomes a person at that time it does become wrong and the mother is at fault for the previous six months of drinking.

 

See by using this way you can oppose drinking at anytime while pregnant and still support abortion up to a certain point of the foetuses developement. So you can have your cake and eat it too.

 

~Scott

[In My Memory]

BenSon,

 

See by using this way you can oppose drinking at anytime while pregnant and still support abortion [/b'] up to a certain point of the foetuses developement. So you can have your cake and eat it too.

Morally speaking, its a really strange situation.

 

Think of it this way, when a woman is pregnant, and she is drinking before the fetus becomes a person (whatever that means), the woman is harming no one.

 

As long as she stops before the fetus is a person, then she's not guilty of harming anyone at all. If she never harmed a person in the first place, how can anyone say she is guilty of abuse?

[Douglas]

BenSon' date='

As long as she stops before the fetus is a person, then she's not guilty of harming anyone at all. If she never harmed a person in the first place, how can anyone say she is guilty of abuse?[/quote']

In some states you can be convicted of murder for killing a fetus/baby. Now if we take BenSon's example of 6 months to become a baby, if one kills a fetus at 5 months, the person didn't kill anything, and if the Mother was a drinker, she wasn't abusing anything, but at the magic moment, the person becomes a killer and the mother an abuser.

[BenSon]

Morally speaking, its a really strange situation.

 

Think of it this way, when a woman is pregnant, and she is drinking before the fetus becomes a person (whatever that means), the woman is harming no one.

 

As long as she stops before the fetus is a person, then she's not guilty of harming anyone at all. If she never harmed a person in the first place, how can anyone say she is guilty of abuse?

 

What I mean by 'becomes a person' is when the foetus has passed the age where it is determined by the law or medical science or whatever it is no longer classified as a foetus but a person. I agree it is a strange situation and difficult to apply morals to. But, i disagree with you in that she has never harmed anyone because the foetus is now a person who has been abused. Oh and by the way it dosen't matter if you think a foetus is not a person until it is born or its three month, four months, or a day, it only has to be up to the time you consider abortion moraly justifiable.

 

In some states you can be convicted of murder for killing a fetus/baby. Now if we take BenSon's example of 6 months to become a baby, if one kills a fetus at 5 months, the person didn't kill anything, and if the Mother was a drinker, she wasn't abusing anything, but at the magic moment, the person becomes a killer and the mother an abuser.

 

Hey thats what I'm going for and by the way I may not necessarily agree that it takes six months for a foetus to become a person it was just an arbitary number I used to help get my point across. Oh as as for this magic moment crap I don't see you trying to apply some ethics to this situation so why don't you do better?

[Aardvark]

Some Doctors assert that cognitive thought process being at the third trimester, and usually at that point the becomes a child. Others insist it's during the second. I don't intend to be pulled into a debate about the precise second during pregnancy when a fetus becomes a child.

 

I'm not asking for a magic precise moment where a foetus becomes a child, that would obviously be silly. I'm wondering if you accept that there is any point during a pregnany that you would consider a foetus to have developed sufficently to be considered part of humanity and therefore it becomes your business to intervene on behalf of its welfare. Or alternatively, do you think that it is none of anyone elses business accept the mothers until the actual birth itself?

 

 

My point is, an abortion is intended to end the potential[/i'] life of a child. I have no opinion on that, I don't see it as any of my business any more than I see it my business to ensure you personally never wear a condom.

 

Understood. With slightly disturbing mental imagery.

 

However, alcohol during pregnancy is damaging a fetus that will become a child and an eventual member of humanity. That's the part where it becomes society's business, humanity's business, as it's one person abusing another (abet abuse in advance of birth).

 

Yes, the causing of harm to another individual, even iof that harm is administered in a delayed fashion.

[-Demosthenes-]

It's my business then because the child is part of humanity, and any damage done to one member of humanity lessens us all. No man is an island, and all that.

Wait... If you don't consider a fetus a person there is no abuse at all. How can destorying a fetus be not as bad as damaging one?

[AzurePhoenix]

Unlike an aborted fetus, and baby born with fetal alcohol syndrome is likely to suffer for the entirety of his/her life.

[Douglas]

Well what does "pro choice" mean. It obviously means you can choose to have an abortion, does it also mean you can bring to term a "crack" baby or an alcohol dependant baby if one chooses ??

 

How can a person be punished for doing what they want with their body?

[-Demosthenes-]

Unlike an aborted fetus, and baby born with fetal alcohol syndrome is likely to suffer for the entirety of his/her life.

I find this very confusing. You can kill a fetus, but not damage it? Don't you have to damage it to kill it? Wouldn't that be wrong? Or is it only if it will be born, in which case it sucks to be fetus. Not only can you be killed legally, but the rules are very confusing.

 

Some Doctors assert that cognitive thought process being at the third trimester, and usually at that point the becomes a child. Others insist it's during the second. I don't intend to be pulled into a debate about the precise second during pregnancy when a fetus becomes a child.

That's precisely why some people are against abortion, we don't know when it becomes a child. So why not be safe and not destroy it (except in extreme cases)?

[AzurePhoenix]

I find this very confusing. You can kill a fetus' date=' but not damage it? Don't you have to damage it to kill it? Wouldn't that be wrong? Or is it only if it will be born, in which case it sucks to be fetus. Not only can you be killed legally, but the rules are very confusing.

[/quote'] I suppose the answer to that question depends on you're definition of mercy. I consider a swift death far more merciful and humane than a lifetime of pain that could have easily been averted by simply choosing to not get wasted.

 

Drinking (or smoking) while pregnant is nothing but a blatant disregard for the life and well-being of the entity that you're carrying (I myself don't support abortion as a frivolous choice, but as a serious option that should only be considered under special circumstances)

[atinymonkey]

I'm wondering if you accept that there is any point during a pregnany that you would consider a foetus to have developed sufficently to be considered part of humanity and therefore it becomes your business to intervene on behalf of its welfare. Or alternatively, do you think that it is none of anyone elses business accept the mothers until the actual birth itself?

Hmm. On a personal level I trust the BMA to let me know when cognative thoughts have formed, and at that point I would consider the foteus to be part of humanity (as that is the point it truly becomes a child). Any other definition is just anthropomorphising the foetus.

 

Wait... If you don't consider a fetus a person there is no abuse at all. How can destorying a fetus be not as bad as damaging one?

Because the fetus never becomes a child in the case of abortion. However, damaging a child is a different matter.

 

Well what does "pro choice" mean. It obviously means you can choose to have an abortion' date=' does it also mean you can bring to term a "crack" baby or an alcohol dependant baby if one chooses ??

[/quote']

You see, what you are suggesting here is that 'pro choice' means people can do anything they like with impunity from the law. That's deliberately misunderstanding a perfectly clear definition, and blatant strawmanning. It's akin to me saying pro abortionists advocate never having recreational sex, never masturbate, never use birth control, are homophobic and keep the women in the bedroom making babies.

 

'Pro choice' means that it is none of your business, and the freedom of the people is protected by the constitution. Having fanatics dictate what can and cannot be done against all medical and scientific research is despicable and wrong.

 

That's precisely why some people are against abortion' date=' we don't know when it becomes a child. So why not be safe and not destroy it (except in extreme cases)?[/quote']

That is one reason why some people are against abortion. However, we know at some point it is also zygote, a sperm, an egg, a collection of proteins in a cheese sandwich. So long as it's not cognitive, its not a child. We may not know the precise moment when that happens, but we know when it defiantly is not. This is the timeframe for an abortion.

[Douglas]

 

You see' date=' what you are suggesting here is that 'pro choice' means people can do anything they like with impunity from the law. That's deliberately misunderstanding a perfectly clear definition, and blatant strawmanning.

[/quote']

What I said was....If a woman is free to do what she wishes with her body, then she can choose to have an abortion, or she can choose to bring a crack baby to term.

[-Demosthenes-]

Because the fetus never becomes a child in the case of abortion. However, damaging a child is a different matter.

I think I understand, but it still doesn't sit well.

[atinymonkey]

What I said was....If a woman is free to do what she wishes with her body, then she can choose to have an abortion, or she can choose to bring a crack baby to term.

Yes. And I told you was that's deliberately misunderstanding a perfectly clear definition. Abortion has got nothing to do with drug use, the laws are not the same. Your argument is, as usual, a bizarre fallacy which is convincing precisely no-one.

 

I think I understand, but it still doesn't sit well.

It doesn't need to sit well, if you have a different opinion to me then that's fine. I'd suggest is that you come to your own conclusions, and not just pick the simple choice. Sometimes the right thing to do is complicated, sometimes the right thing to believe is hard to grasp. It's better to work out your own ideas on tricky subjects.

 

Unlike Douglas, I'm not trying to cram my opinions down anyones throat. I've just explaining the reasoning behind my own.

[Newtonian]

I was thinking about the different ways people have tried to justify abortion. And' date=' it occurred to me that there is a strange justication for pro-choice that goes something like "its her body, her choice" and "the unborn person is not a life".

 

I dont think people reason consistently about this. For instance, while there is a sharp divide between people who believe in "her body, her choice", almost [i']everyone[/i] agrees that alcohol abuse during pregnancy is a very very bad thing.

 

So, it makes me wonder how people can justify the simultaneous belief that the unborn person is not a life for the first 6 months (implying that its not morally valuable or cannot be harmed) and the prohibition on women using alcohol at any time while pregnant.

 

I dont see an inconsistency given your above examples.I believe in the "its her body,her choice" as long as its early in the pregnancy(differs slighty in different countries),im supportive of the womens right to choose to terminate her unwanted pregnancy.

The second example is only abhorent if the alcholic abuser wishes to carry the fetus full term.,thus putting the childs development in the womb at risk.But if the two were identical in wanting an early termination i find nothing wrong

[Newtonian]

I certainly have found Atinymonkeys posts easily understood and coherent.In fact if he is guilty of anything its repeating himself but phrasing it different.I find he has offered a common sense approach and conducted himself brilliantly.Im very suprised he hasnt gave you all his very severe tongue lashing.

The OP was offering a very vague question.

It is not against the law yet to smoke or drink,whilst neither habits are healthy for either mum or developing fetus.Certainly in the early stages there is no statistical evidence that the fetus will suffer long term damage.Society frowns upon those whom do abuse their bodies if they intend to carry the baby full term and justifiably.However if a person wishes to terminate by going to have an abortion / drinking whiskey in a hot bath or throwing themselves downstairs.Then thats none of your goddamn business.We can certainly offer an opinion but thats it.

The only inconsistancy i can see is you want human rights in one breath/then cry abuse of human rights if the state control every aspect of you.....china springs to mind...would you prefer pregnant people to be sent there..no choice then!!!

[Douglas]

ATM RESPONSE TO IMM

For me, it goes like this - A girl does not need to justify her abortion to me, because it's not my business. It arrogant to presume otherwise. However, if someone is torturing a child then that is my business. It's my business then because the child is part of humanity, and any damage done to one member of humanity lessens us all. No man is an island, and all that.

AARDVARK RESPONSE TO ATM

Originally Posted by Aardvark

And at what point do you consider a foetus does entail the rights and becomes your business. Only after birth or at some late stage of the pregnancy?

ATM RESPONSE TO AARDVARK

My point is, an abortion is intended to end the potential life of a child. I have no opinion on that, I don't see it as any of my business any more than I see it my business to ensure you personally never wear a condom. However, alcohol during pregnancy is damaging a fetus that will become a child and an eventual member of humanity. That's the part where it becomes society's business, humanity's business, as it's one person abusing another (abet abuse in advance of birth).

MY UNSOLICITED STATEMENT

Well what does "pro choice" mean. It obviously means you can choose to have an abortion, does it also mean you can bring to term a "crack" baby or an alcohol dependant baby if one chooses ??

ATM'S RESPONSE

You see, what you are suggesting here is that 'pro choice' means people can do anything they like with impunity from the law. That's deliberately misunderstanding a perfectly clear definition, and blatant strawmanning. It's akin to me saying pro abortionists advocate never having recreational sex, never masturbate, never use birth control, are homophobic and keep the women in the bedroom making babies.

 

'Pro choice' means that it is none of your business, and the freedom of the people is protected by the constitution. Having fanatics dictate what can and cannot be done against all medical and scientific research is despicable and wrong.

MY REPLY BY ANSWERING MY OWN PREVIOUS QUESTION

What I said was....If a woman is free to do what she wishes with her body, then she can choose to have an abortion, or she can choose to bring a crack baby to term.

ATM'S REPLY TO THE ABOVE

Yes. And I told you was that's deliberately misunderstanding a perfectly clear definition. Abortion has got nothing to do with drug use, the laws are not the same. Your argument is, as usual, a bizarre fallacy which is convincing precisely no-one.

 

MY REPLY.......................Huh??? this has nothin' to do with nuthin' hehehe What argument????? What fallacy?????

 

FROM ATM'S POST #4 AND MY POST #20

I conclude (by atm's admission) that it's none of ATM's business if a child is terminated through abortion, but it *is* ATM's business when a crack baby is born.

 

Which is what I wanted to hear from ATM........but didn't get it.

 

Amen