Abortion

[Aardvark]

But the problem is' date=' there are no black and white cases in abortion and yet we are confronted to a black and white decision (kill it or not). We have to make a general decision concerning civil rights, whether some situations will be rather hard and bring tears.

 

In my opinion, it's not ok for someone to only allow some abortions; it's kinda like having no basic of judgement. The rights must be decided to come either at conception, either at birth.[/quote']

 

I agree with your basic premise that there is no 'black and white' in deciding when abortion is acceptable and when it is not.

 

However i don't agree with the train of logic which then says that rights either begin at conception or birth. Pregnancy is a process of development. It is impossible to point at any one moment and say, 'Yes, this is the moment the foetus becomes human', but a foetus at 8 months is objectively different from a foetus at 1 month.

 

A line has to be drawn somewhere, even accepting that means a degree of arbitaryness. One possible way would be to look at the trimesters. That seems a fair basis of judgement. I'm not offering any hard and fast answers here, just pointing out that partial birth abortions seem way, way too late to be acceptable.

[Rakasha]

Then I guess the difference is that I see great importance in where the line is drawn

 

It would be great to put the line around half of the pregnancy, in term of my personal feeling. But I don't want to see law based on personal feelings. It would kinda send the message that something is moral if it seems ok to you. We'd have all kind of problems concerning the interpretation of law.

 

I mean, some homicides and some thefts may seems damn right to you, but the law still condemn 'em all. Because it put aside personal feelings. If it did'nt, we'd have some big troubles.

[Aardvark]

Then I guess the difference is that I see great importance in where the line is drawn

 

It would be great to put the line around half of the pregnancy' date=' in term of my personal feeling. But I don't want to see law based on personal feelings. It would kinda send the message that something is moral if it seems ok to you. We'd have all kind of problems concerning the interpretation of law.

[/quote']

 

On the contrary, i do see great importance where the line is drawn, i can also see hard hard and ambigous it is to pick a particular point to draw the line.

 

Just because it is impossible to establish a definite moment where is should be drawn does not alter the fact that a line should be drawn somewhere, as you said, not everything in life is black and white. That is'nt a reason not to have a law.

 

By your reasoning, as not all robberies are morally the same and it is difficult to draw a line between, say, a man stealing food to feed his hungry child and a man robbing a bank therefore we should do away with laws against robbery.

 

Or the analogy of drinking and driving. At what point from a small sherry to 10 pints of lager does a man become to intoxicated to drive. A point is set, 1mg under and you are in the clear, 1mg over and you are a criminal. Of course it is abritary to a certain degree, but according to your logic there would either be no limit for alcohol consumption or having 1 single alcohol molecule in your bloodstream would be a criminal offence.

 

I think a line has to be drawn somewhere, accepting that it will be to a degree arbitary. Otherwise you really would be sending out signals about things being moral if they feel ok.

[Rakasha]

I think you misunderstood me, are'nt we on the same side then ?

 

What I meant was that there must be a strong reason to draw a line at a certain place. Ruling out abortions in the middle of pregnancy has one basic: ¨it's not ok because the fetus looks too much like a human¨. I'm saying that this kind of judgement cannot be translated into a stance, or into a law. It would be the same as saying that one should do what he wants because personal feelings prevails.

[Aardvark]

I think you misunderstood me' date=' are'nt we on the same side then ?

[/quote']

 

I wasn't actually approaching this discussion from the point of view of different 'sides'. There is a lot we both agree on, it's just the logical conclusions drawn from that common ground that we differ on.

 

You're saying there is no one point where it is logical to draw the line in the feotus's development, therefore no such line should be drawn.

 

I agree that there is no one point where it is logical to draw the line.

 

However, i am saying that nevertheless a line has to be drawn somewhere, even without a black and white guide of ethics. Sometimes in life we have to take decisions which are messy and arbitary, that is the nature of the world we live in. As you said, not everything is black and white.

 

I don't see that as letting law be decided by personal feelings, rather by the necessary acknowledgement that sometimes we have to make the best compromise possible in a moral quagmire.

 

It's not about black and white, but shades of grey.

[Rakasha]

Oh, by the same side comment I was'nt implying some sort of debate. I meant that we seems to share the same point of view about the importance of where the line is drawn. My point was just that a line should be founded on a general idea and ignore rare particuliar situation where feeling are'nt quite happy with the outcome.

 

It's law based on principles, even if it feels that some of the thefts are rather ok and some of the abortions are rather not. That is, theft is punished the same even if this one time the old man only needed some food to survive. The same way, abortion should be based on a general idea concerning the more than a million normal procedures that happens each year, putting aside the less than 3000 procedures that may feels bad (partial abortions). That's taking the U.S figures as an example.

 

But I agree with you about the shade of grey and I'm starting to reconsider my position. Partly because it would be for the best to avoid partial abortions and the deterring value of a law sometimes is more important than punishing some indecisive mother who waited too long.

[Douglas]

If I drew the line of when a fetus can be acknowledged as a baby, it would be at the end of the 2nd trimester, or perhaps at some point where the fetus has survived after the earliest known cesarean section. I know this sounds arbitrary, but it seems that we should establish a line where no abortions are allowed.

 

Does anyone have any comments of when a theoretically cloned human, actually becomes a human.?

That is to say, when did "Dolly the sheep" become a sheep?

[husmusen]

Douglas, I must disagree.

 

Excerpt from 'A child is born'*1 by Lennart Nilsson.

 

"At eight weeks, ..., the developing individual is no longer an embryo but a

foetus. Everything that will be found in the fully developed human being

has now been established.

 

The foetal stage is one of growth and perfection of detail. The heart has been

beating for a month."

 

Therefore I do not see how any such line could be drawn *after* this stage.

 

 

*1 Nilsson,L. 'A child is born' P71 0-571-111-394.(This is a really good read).

[Phi for All]

Therefore I do not see how any such line could be drawn *after* this stage.

We have established in this thread that a legal definition must be arbitrary in order to span cultural differences. The fact that an 8 week old fetus has everything that establishes it as a human doesn't alter the fact that it is still dependent on the mother for life for several more months.

 

Everyone's opinions will differ as to when or if it is acceptable to terminate an unborn child, and all those opinions are completely valid. Abortion must be viewed from a legal stance only or this thread would be endless. Since making all abortions illegal brings up too many opportunities for injustice, a line must be drawn somewhere that accomodates as many situations as possible.

[husmusen]

#1

The fact that an 8 week old fetus has everything that establishes it as a human doesn't alter the fact that it is still dependent on the mother for life for several more months.

 

So then in your view temporary dependency of one life on another nullifies the right to life, do I understand you correctly?

 

#2

While I understand the political need for accomodation of various views,

one should still as much as possible try to ground a law in physical realities,

It's good for sanity

 

For example, I think it was this thread, I saw the parasite label dragged out,

while they are entitled to their view it does not change the fact that it is

factually incorrect. By definition a species cannot self-parasitize, also since the unborn contributes something in a biological sense(preservation of genes) the relationship is one of symbiosis not parasitosis.

 

All opinions are equally valid can lead to fact free debating.

(Just my personal opinion )

 

Cheers.

[Phi for All]

So then in your view temporary dependency of one life on another nullifies the right to life, do I understand you correctly?

No, you do not.

 

In fact, your attempt to distill such a complicated issue into a flaming, single-sentence judgement is ludicrous.

 

In order to keep from prosecuting every woman who unintentionally endangers the fetus she is carrying (or even intentionally, since smoking while pregnant is not advisable but not currently illegal), the rights of the mother outweigh the rights of the unborn child to a certain extent. Without this distinction, every woman who does anything that could possibly put her fetus in danger would be guilty of reckless endangerment at the least and manslaughter or even murder if it resulted in a miscarriage. While the legal profession might rub its hands in glee over the possibilities, the courts could never handle all the cases.

 

It has been pointed out earlier in this thread that the dependency of the fetus on the mother should give the mother more rights over decisions made regarding her body. No one is disputing that life begins for a viable human being at a certain point, and that moral judgements begin at that point. But for legal purposes, such as when abortion should cease to be an option, there needs to be a limit that is as equitable as possible.

[husmusen]

Phi for all:

 

In post #12:

'I think life starts when the child could reasonably be separated from the mother.'

 

In post #59:

'The fact that an 8 week old fetus has everything that establishes it as a human doesn't alter the fact that it is still dependent on the mother for life for several more months.'

 

husmusen:

'So then in your view temporary dependency of one life on another nullifies the right to life, do I understand you correctly?'

 

phi for all:(paraphrased)

No you don't and that's a ludicrous suggestion.

 

I don't mind your disagreement, but I'll defend my question.

[Phi for All]

phi for all:(paraphrased)

No you don't and that's a ludicrous suggestion.

 

I don't mind your disagreement' date=' but I'll defend my question.[/quote']Really, really, really poor paraphrasing.

 

I've explained how I believe that the temporary dependence places the fetus' rights below the mother's imo, not erases them. What I found ludicrous was your trying to place words like "nullifies the right to life" into my mouth, thus completely ignoring what I'd said earlier.

 

Now you want to paraphrase me further? Why should I bother writing words like, "your attempt to distill such a complicated issue into a flaming, single-sentence judgement" if you're not going to read them? It takes extra time and effort but I thought you were worth it, I really did.

 

Was I wrong to think that?

[husmusen]

I paraphrased the last quote because it was in the post directly above mine,

and anyone who wanted the full post only had to glance up to see it.

 

Secondly if I was trying to put words into your mouth I wouldn't have asked you if it was an accurate gist of your views.

 

Additionally I was not distilling the *issue* but rather my perception of *your view*. There is a differance, see below.

 

husmusen:

"So then in your view temporary dependency of one life on another nullifies the right to life, do I understand you correctly?"(Emphasis added).

 

Lastly I did read your explanation.

Suffice to say that given abortion is a fairly black and white procedure, either the foetus is dead or it's not, I find the notion of relative rights to be more theoretical than practical.

 

You see killing something does rather nullify it rights, at least in my view.

[JaKiri]

Lastly I did read your explanation.

Suffice to say that given abortion is a fairly black and white procedure' date=' either the foetus is dead or it's not, I find the notion of relative rights to be more theoretical than practical.[/quote']

 

Relative rights are immensely practical, more so than our current legal system.

[In My Memory]

Although it is probably inappropriate for governments to legislate morality, I think any kind of debate on whether certain actions amount to rights violations inevitably makes it very hard to seperate law from morality. On abortion, because the situation involves conflicting types of self-determination between mother and unborn child, I dont find it inappropriate to make abortion illegal because it is percieved as unethical.

 

I have a tendency to swing back and forth on how I feel about abortion. For now, I would be interested to hear what others think is the basis to consider abortion unethical?

 

In order to keep from prosecuting every woman who unintentionally endangers the fetus she is carrying (or even intentionally, since smoking while pregnant is not advisable but not currently illegal), the rights of the mother outweigh the rights of the unborn child to a certain extent. Without this distinction, every woman who does anything that could possibly put her fetus in danger would be guilty of reckless endangerment at the least and manslaughter or even murder if it resulted in a miscarriage. While the legal profession might rub its hands in glee over the possibilities, the courts could never handle all the cases.

Hmmm...

 

In America, our president has pushed forward a bill called the "Unborn Victims of Violence Act" (bills like this have been around for a while).

 

There is a great deal of concern about prosecuting women for what would otherwise be non-crimes. I came across this quote from House Rep Conyers who debated the 1999 version of this bill:

She could be held liable for any behavior during her pregnancy having potential adverse effects on her fetus, including failing to eat properly or using prescriptions or illegal drugs, smoking, drinking, exposing herself to infectious disease or to work place hazards, or even using general anesthetic or drugs to induce rapid labor during delivery. Indeed, we have already seen some of these measures introduced at the State level, and if the trend continues, pregnant women will live in fear that any accident or error in judgment could be deemed unacceptable and become the basis for a criminal prosecution.

[Guest Sithlordmike]

I think that abortions are wrong because they made the wrong decision in the first place of getting pregnant and then killing the baby even though its not born think of what it may have become, it may very well have been the baby that ended the gasoline problem that we have, or something big.

[Sayonara]

People don't "decide" to get pregnant, then have an abortion just for a laugh.

[Lance]

People don't "decide" to get pregnant, then have an abortion just for a laugh.

 

 

Maybe I should have payed more attention in sex-ed but I'm relatively sure people have to decide to have sex for sex to take place. Nobody's erect penis just fall into the nearby vagina and pumped vigorously by an earthquake.

[Sayonara]

I'm surprised that you can't see the difference between two people having sex, and two people both intentionally and successfully procreating.

[Phi for All]

There is a great deal of concern about prosecuting women for what would otherwise be non-crimes. I came across this quote from House Rep Conyers who debated the 1999 version of this bill[/url']:

I think a big part of the problem in the US is when the media brings isolated instances together from across the whole country and tries to show some corelation. If they report on three seperate instances of women endangering an unborn child in the same manner, it becomes an epidemic in the public's view and suddenly politicians jump into the spotlight and legislation is called for.

 

I remember several years ago when Susan Smith killed her two boys by putting them in the trunk of the car and pushing it into a lake. Within a week, the media had found two other mothers who had slain their offspring recently (not that hard with a national database and 350 million population), and suddenly people were wondering if gamma rays from outer space were going to drive all mothers insane.

I think that abortions are wrong because they made the wrong decision in the first place of getting pregnant and then killing the baby even though its not born think of what it may have become, it may very well have been the baby that ended the gasoline problem that we have, or something big.

As Sayo said, once the decision to have a child is made, abortions almost never happen without good medical reasons. Also, you can't use the argument about killing off a gasoline problem-solving genius because there's an equal chance the child could also be the next Stalin, Kim Il Sung or Pol Pot.

[Seditious]

I fully support abortion, as it really is a woman's right to choose.

 

But more importantly, I don't consider a fetus a life, not even close.

[Aardvark]

I fully support abortion' date=' as it really [i']is[/i] a woman's right to choose.

 

But more importantly, I don't consider a fetus a life, not even close.

 

At what point do you consider does a foetus come close to becoming a life?

[Seditious]

At what point do you consider does a foetus come close to becoming a life?

 

Honestly, I guess that question really depends on how one defines "a life." But I know I certainly don't consider a fetus a life while it's still in the fetal stage.

 

I don't consider a fetus to be "alive" until it is born. And I hate to sound like such a cold-hearted bitch, I'm really not, but I don't really consider a newborn to be a "life" either.

[Lance]

 

I don't consider a fetus to be "alive" until it is born. And I hate to sound like such a cold-hearted bitch' date=' I'm really not, but I don't really consider a newborn to be a "life" either.[/quote']

 

So does that make ethical to 'put-down' your newborn? If a newborn isnt life, am I?