Sensitive Question About Abortion

[Madanthony]

At some point, be it conception or whichever trimester you choose, the fetus becomes a baby and killing it is murder. Now generally, when we're talking about killing someone, we want to err on the side of caution. The means by which one becomes pregnant are well known. So are the means to prevent pregnancy with better than 99% success. Given all this, unless a women's life is in danger,or she became pregnant via a nonconsentual sex act, abortion should not be allowed. We should err on the side of protecting life. The women made her "choice" when she decided to have sex without birth control or to run the 1% risk of getting pregnant with birth control.

[Newtonian]

I conclude (by atm's admission) that it's none of ATM's business if a child is terminated through abortion' date=' 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[/quote']

Probably because its daft...it isnt any of his business if a crack baby is born,nor if a fetus is aborted after the accepted timeline.What i read from his posts in answer to the OP, he was saying is society in general is against/voices concern when a druggie/alcoholic abuses her body when she intends to carry the baby full term....and that under other circumstances wereby the mother wished to terminate the pregnancy for whatever reason he didnt have an opinion.Why is that so difficult to accept.

You are entitled to disagree and be pro-life under any circumstance,but for now and hopefully forever here in the UK its the womens choice...god help us if we let the state decide

[Newtonian]

The means by which one becomes pregnant are well known. So are the means to prevent pregnancy with better than 99% success. Given all this, unless a women's life is in danger,or she became pregnant via a nonconsentual sex act, abortion should not be allowed. We should err on the side of protecting life. The women made her "choice" when she decided to have sex without birth control or to run the 1% risk of getting pregnant with birth control.

So you want the streets to be full of 13 year old sexmad rampant irresponsible children pushing prams.....you have no problem with children caring for children or not as in many cases and the child suffering all the nasty after effects etc etc.....havent we enough of them already,they are approx 60,000 17yr old and under every year.

[beautyundone]

i suppose it all comes down to the question of whether you think a baby with FAS (or other problems caused by drug use/drinking) would be better off living its life with such a hindrance or if it would be more humane to go ahead and abort it. but then, this would bring up the issue of retardations present in babies and whether or not we should abort babies if they have known retardations to save them the pain... and i'm not going to go into it.

 

i don't think that it is right for a mother to knowingly inflict harm to her baby through drinking or drugs, but it's not really my business. retarded children wouldn't know the difference; they wouldn't know a life any different. so essentially, they could be perfectly happy... perhaps more so than the rest of us. imagine having that child-like happiness for life... i suppose that's what i'm getting at.

 

anyhow, i'm rambling. but it all boils down to your personal opinion and views. for issues such as these, there are no definite right or wrong answers.

[Sayonara]

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.

I'm not sure that someone who wants an abortion is going to think alcohol is a bad thing, so I really don't see where the inconsistency lies. People acknowledge that alcohol during pregnancy is bad because it cripples the chances of a healthy baby at birth, not because they belong to a club that opposes all arguments against abortion.

 

 

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.

Just because we don't throw the vote at foetuses doesn't mean we all want to pickle them. Different situations call for different measures (and/or reasoning, as applicable to the circumstances). It's that simple.

 

The premise of this thread seems fallacious, but I can't put my finger on exactly where. I suspect it's "red herringing" itself.

[In My Memory]

Sayonara,

 

The premise of this thread seems fallacious, but I can't put my finger on exactly where. I suspect it's "red herringing" itself.

You are correct, the premise of this thread is fallacious, but not for reasons anyone has mentioned yet. It isnt red herringing or strawmanninging, but something else entirely. I think if I gave it away, that would kill the spirit of this thread

[Newtonian]

People took it upon themselves to answer what they percieved to be a definitive question in the OP.There was no question to answer.

Your opening sentence "about the different ways people have tried to justify abortion",and you gave "pro choice....her body"as such an example.

 

The second part you merely made a statement " almost everyone agrees that alcohol abuse during pregnancy is a very very bad thing".Which it is.But this is nothing to do with abortion or its justification.

People have went off on a tangent debating the substance abuser having/not having a baby.Be they for/against/indifferent.

 

As i said there was no inconsistancy in your OP.

[john5746]

So' date=' 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.[/quote']

 

For me, being pro-choice doesn't mean that the baby isn't a life. The fetus is alive, but the woman has the choice. The right to her body overrides the life of the fetus, because the fetus is a part of her body.

 

Now, if she is damaging the fetus and it will eventually be born, that is a different matter. She is intentionally causing suffering.

 

If I have a terminally ill puppy that needs to be put under, that doesn't give me the right to stick pins in it and set it on fire. The outcome is the same, but the path is very different.

[atinymonkey]

People took it upon themselves to answer what they perceived to be a definitive question in the OP.

The OP in any thread is inherently an invitation to discuss. IMM was implicit that this was to be a discussion on the reasoning in the OP. I think you have got a little confused, and assumed this was a rambling diatribe, which it is not. It is a discussion on what IMM saw as an inconsistency of logic, and an explanation of why it is not seen that way.

[Sayonara]

Sayonara' date='

 

 

You are correct, the premise of this thread is fallacious, but not for reasons anyone has mentioned yet. It isnt red herringing or strawmanninging, but something else entirely. I think if I gave it away, that would kill the spirit of this thread [/quote']

I'm going to lie in bed obssessing about this, dammit.

[In My Memory]

BenSon,

 

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.

This doesnt resolve anything. Here is what a timeline of pregnancy looks like:

[------------x-----]
|	     |	   |
Conception   |     |
  Person   |
	 Birth

Between the time of conception and personhood, a preganant woman is just as well off as a non-pregnant one. But, when a fetus comes to personhood, it just so happens that the fetus came to personhood as a disabled person (a person cannot be abused if it doesnt exist) - you shouldnt be able to tell the difference between this and an accident.

 

... or, another interpretation. If it is true that a woman does not have an obligation to protect the life or well-being of the fetus before personhood, then there isnt a conflict between drinking and abortion - you would say that deliberately bring an FAS baby to term is no more immoral than abortion.

 

... or, yet another interpretation, if it matters that the fetus has been damaged before it ever became a person, then two things become obvious: personhood has nothing but red herring relevance to the rightness or wrongness of abortion, and even more there is no longer anything that distinguishes damaging the fetus by alcohol and damaging (or destroying) the fetus by abortion.

[atinymonkey]

Huh. Are you deliberately ignoring the previous points? Do we have to continue reitterating that damaging the fetus is not linked to the decisons behind abortion? At this point, would it be as well to start drawing out the relevent laws in relation to the subject?

 

It seems as thought you are intent on painting a picture of abortionists as people who would inflict damage on a foetus, permanently, or carry out an abortion. As if in some way it were a choice between the two.

[In My Memory]

Atinymonkey,

 

Huh. Are you deliberately ignoring the previous points?

No, I'm not. Here is everyones previous points:

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

"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."

 

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."

 

Newtonian:

"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"

 

Sayonara3:

"People acknowledge that alcohol during pregnancy is bad because it cripples the chances of a healthy baby at birth, not because they belong to a club that opposes all arguments against abortion."

You can see that most of the responses here are saying the same thing - there is really only a single point being mentioned. So, I only chose to respond to this point one time. I dont need to copy and paste the same comments to every post.

 

Do we have to continue reitterating that damaging the fetus is not linked to the decisons behind abortion? At this point, would it be as well to start drawing out the relevent laws in relation to the subject?

It doesnt matter what the decisions are to have an abortion, that isnt the point of this thread, the real point is to discuss "what IMM saw as an inconsistency of logic". And the relevant laws are irrelevant, mentioning those only serves to distract from the purpose of this thread.

 

It seems as thought you are intent on painting a picture of abortionists as people who would inflict damage on a foetus, permanently, or carry out an abortion. As if in some way it were a choice between the two.

*spits out words put into my mouth*

 

I was only interested in the thought experiment, to show an inconsistency in the belief about personhood, to encourage people to be more critical about their beliefs.

 

But, I think it is obvious that there is some kind of logical problem with my opening post (Sayonara is having restless nights over this ). But, unfortunately, no one actually took the time to look at my post for its philosophical merit or show that some of the reasoning is philosobabbling; instead, what I got were a series of attempts to obscure the contradiction without actually going at the philosophical meat of my argument. I consider these attempts to be on the order of shoddy apologetics, having nothing to do with philosophy or morality at all.

 

If it makes you feel any better, I am just as pro-choice as anyone else you are probably familiar with. This is because I've taken the time to actually sit and enjoy my philosophy classes and take a look at arguments for their philosphical merit, whereas everyone else is content with regurgitating the same wishy-washy arguments that have been unchanged for over 30 years.

[john5746]

I consider these attempts to be on the order of shoddy apologetics' date=' having nothing to do with philosophy or morality at all.

 

If it makes you feel any better, I am just as pro-choice as anyone else you are probably familiar with. This is because I've taken the time to actually sit and enjoy my philosophy classes and take a look at arguments for their philosphical merit, whereas everyone else is content with regurgitating the same wishy-washy arguments that have been unchanged for over 30 years.[/quote']

 

I think some of the arguments, including my own were just fine. Do they teach humility in any of your classes?

[In My Memory]

John,

 

I think some of the arguments, including my own were just fine. Do they teach humility in any of your classes?

They taught cantankerous cynicism and apathetic elitism, does that count?

 

(Actually I could probably write a book on just all the silly arguments for and against abortion I've ever come across. From the claim that something that grows, metabolizes carbohydrates for energy, and made up of cells isnt actually alive, to the claim that something has a diminished right to life because it was not conceived consentually. Its amazing that people will make these kinds of really bad arguments, yet the one thing you never see anything bring up is exactly why life has any moral worth in the first place.)

[Severian]

It seems perfectly consistant to me. If you do things to a foetus/embryo/whatever that will make it turn into a disabled child, then you are harming the child through your actions. If you abort the foetus/embryo/whatever, there is no child to be harmed, so no problem.

[atinymonkey]

No' date=' I'm not. Here is everyones previous points: [/quote']

Yes. Selective parts. Almost as if you were being selective about the posts to propagate the notion that there is a logical fallacy, where there is none.

 

You can see that most of the responses here are saying the same thing - there is really only a single point being mentioned. So, I only chose to respond to this point one time. I dont need to copy and paste the same comments to every post.

No, they have similar point in them but they are not the same. The point you are constantly removing is the differentiation between abusing a foetus with alcohol/drugs and the clinical process of ending the gestation of a foetus before the pregnancy comes to term.

 

It doesnt matter what the decisions are to have an abortion, that isnt the point of this thread, the real point is to discuss "what IMM saw as an inconsistency of logic". And the relevant laws are irrelevant, mentioning those only serves to distract from the purpose of this thread.

If all your intent on doing is discussing a perceived fallacy that many people have explained is not a fallacy, is it any wonder I'm getting a little exasperated? Brick wall, head, banging, my?

 

*spits out words put into my mouth*

*Steps around the spit*

I didn't put words into your mouth, I explained my perception of your position. It's a process used in communication so that you can understand my position. If I didn't you would continue, blind of how your posts were being read, and that wouldn't do anyone any good.

 

I was only interested in the thought experiment, to show an inconsistency in the belief about personhood, to encourage people to be more critical about their beliefs.

It's an inconstancy that nobody else really seems to see. Trying to redirect the thread to reassess the same flawed inconstancy is not really going to be effective. Trust me.

 

But, I think it is obvious that there is some kind of logical problem with ..............at the philosophical meat of my argument. I consider these attempts to be on the order of shoddy apologetics, having nothing to do with philosophy or morality at all.

Huh. I see. Well, I'll have to assume you don't have any qualification to make that decision. If you want the posters in the thread to keep stabbing in the dark until they hit on whatever you consider and 'appropriate' response, you should have put this in the puzzles forum.

 

If it makes you feel any better, I am just as pro-choice as anyone else you are probably familiar with. This is because I've taken the time to actually sit and enjoy my philosophy classes and take a look at arguments for their philosphical merit, whereas everyone else is content with regurgitating the same wishy-washy arguments that have been unchanged for over 30 years.

I'm sorry. Because you have been to school and attended your philosophy classes that somehow your opinion has more weight? You are implying that I/we haven't taken the time to understand these issues?

 

I think you ought to reassess that attitude before we progress much further. Not only are the people you are lecturing to considerably more experienced in this area that yourself, such a patronising attitude is not welcome from anyone regardless of experience.

[Pangloss]

Well you don't speak for me. I thought that was a well-reasoned and interesting argument, IMM.

[In My Memory]

Atinymonkey,

 

Yes. Selective parts. Almost as if you were being selective about the posts to propagate the notion that there is a logical fallacy' date=' where there is none.

 

No, they have similar point in them but they are not the same. The point you are constantly removing is the differentiation between abusing a foetus with alcohol/drugs and the clinical process of ending the gestation of a foetus before the pregnancy comes to term.[/quote']

Hmmm? I'm not removing the point, I've been saying the differentiation isnt meaningful and leads to inconsistency, see this post.

 

 

 

Do we have to continue reitterating that damaging the fetus is not linked to the decisons behind abortion? At this point' date=' would it be as well to start drawing out the relevent laws in relation to the subject?[/quote']

It doesnt matter what the decisions are to have an abortion, that isnt the point of this thread, the real point is to discuss "what IMM saw as an inconsistency of logic". And the relevant laws are irrelevant, mentioning those only serves to distract from the purpose of this thread.

If all your intent on doing is discussing a perceived fallacy that many people have explained is not a fallacy, is it any wonder I'm getting a little exasperated? Brick wall, head, banging, my?

I'm reading and re-reading the response, and I can neither see where you are coming, nor where you going with your comments. But, no worries.

 

Edit to add: Oh, I forgot to say, I agree with you that damaging the fetus has nothing to do with the reasons for getting an abortion. I never implied such a thing.

 

*Steps around the spit*

I didn't put words into your mouth' date=' I explained my perception of your position. It's a process used in communication so that you can understand my position. If I didn't you would continue, blind of how your posts were being read, and that wouldn't do anyone any good.[/quote']

Ah, gotcha

 

Huh. I see. Well' date=' I'll have to assume you don't have any qualification to make that decision. If you want the posters in the thread to keep stabbing in the dark until they hit on whatever you consider and 'appropriate' response, you should have put this in the puzzles forum.

 

I'm sorry. Because you have been to school and attended your philosophy classes that somehow your opinion has more weight? You are implying that I/we haven't taken the time to understand these issues?

 

I think you ought to reassess that attitude before we progress much further. Not only are the people you are lecturing to considerably more experienced in this area that yourself, such a patronising attitude is not welcome from anyone regardless of experience.[/quote']

Me? Patronize? Do you see how happy my avatar is, do you see how many smileys I use in every post, I submit that it is not possible for me to patronize anyone

 

You seem to have misread me at every turn. First, you think I am "painting a picture of abortionists as people who would inflict damage on a foetus", then you think I am aim for posters to "to keep stabbing in the dark until they hit on whatever you consider and 'appropriate' response", then you accuse me of "lecturing" to posters. You, Mr. Monkey, are not a very good psychic

 

About the "If it makes you feel any better, I am just as pro-choice as anyone else you are probably familiar with", that is a typo. I am not a very good typist, I have a very bad habit of revising my posts several times, and sometimes I take out whole phrases or words, leading to communications problems. The comment "If it makes you feel any better, I am just as pro-choice as anyone else you are probably familiar with" was supposed to say "If it makes you feel any better, I am just as pro-choice as anyone else, but not for the same reasons you are probably familiar with", but either I cut out the words or forgot to add them. I had originally wrote the post taking time to point out inconsistencies with some of the traditional arguments pro/con abortion, but I decided that would be off topic, and I deleted it; when I went back to revise some of the original text to conform with new text I had written, I didnt double-check to see that it was what I wanted.

 

So, I apologize if I came off elitist - that was definitely not my intention, I'm just a poor proofreader.

[Mart]

Originally Posted by atinymonkey

the one thing you never see anything bring up is exactly why life has any moral worth in the first place

Any thoughts?

[ecoli]

Sure. Since morality is subjective anyway, and humans are alive. Most of us would consider life in it's most basic form to be moral.

[Mart]

Originally Posted by ecoli

 

Most of us would consider life in it's most basic form to be moral.

 

Are bacteria moral agents?

[Newtonian]

So' date=' 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.

[/quote']

This isnt a cryptic quiz,i find people have addressed your points quite well considering they are not privy to what is going on in your head.Unless you ask specific questions i fear nobody will provide what your looking for.

 

I can't find in any post in the thread of people justifying abortion because the *fetus is not a life*.

 

I would tend to think its the the opposite,the often difficult reasons for terminating and subsequent trauma are compounded because one considers the fetus to be a life.Regardless of gestation period.

The second point is ambigious at best,i find it silly.It has been adressed logically just why people frown on women abusing their body with harmfull substances .On the premise that they are going full-term .Which statistically has potential ill effects for the child.Again no justification for abortion has been asked for here.

People have tried to discuss what you wrote,and only that.To finish i dont think anybody would be concerned in the least of a pregnant female ,drug taking,drowning herself in large quantities of spirits,while base-jumping from the eiffel tower.If they knew she was booked into the clinic next week for the needle!!!!!

[atinymonkey]

So' date=' I apologize if I came off elitist - that was definitely not my intention, I'm just a poor proofreader.[/quote']

Ah, I see. This discussion seems to be getting quite confused, with different people following different trains of logic. Apologies for the misunderstanding then.

 

 

Any thoughts?

No Mart. It's not what I wrote, nor what this thread is about. If you wish to discuss the points I've raised, please reference the points directly. If you wish to raise your own points, please don't do it by creating false quotes. Thanks.

[Douglas]

So' date=' 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.[/quote']

I think I could simply say....in the 1st 6 months, you cannot harm the fetus, but you *can* help the fetus.