Abortion Thread

[LongLiveYorke 38]

The human race is in a very sad state when the most dangerous place for its offspring to be is in its mothers womb.

Nah, it's much more dangerous to be in one's father's seminal vesicles. You have a 1 in several billion chance of even seeing daylight.Of course, it's much worse to be a molecule in some food that's about to be eaten by a male. The majority of the time you're going to be processed and excreated from the body as waste. Some of the time you're going to be absorbed into the blood stream. Some of that time, you may make it down to the testicles as nutrients. Some of that time you may be used to create a sperm cell. Then you're in the position above.Actually, it's probably much worse to be a mineral within the soil. Only some of the time are you going to be absorbed by a plant....etc

[brvheart 1,752]

Nah, it's much more dangerous to be in one's father's seminal vesicles. You have a 1 in several billion chance of even seeing daylight.Of course, it's much worse to be a molecule in some food that's about to be eaten by a male. The majority of the time you're going to be processed and excreated from the body as waste. Some of the time you're going to be absorbed into the blood stream. Some of that time, you may make it down to the testicles as nutrients. Some of that time you may be used to create a sperm cell. Then you're in the position above.Actually, it's probably much worse to be a mineral within the soil. Only some of the time are you going to be absorbed by a plant....etc

Get this physics stuff outta here...

[timwakefield 68]

The link in the OP is broken.

[mtdesmoines 3]

This entire thread made me sad. Humans are biting, ugly beasts.Who cares about the economy? Blech -- I could shower all day and not feel clean after reading this thread.

[timwakefield 68]

Wow all this and you guys haven't even gotten to the grayer issues of forcible rape resulting in pregnancy, pregnancies which carry a huge risk for the mother, and fetuses in utero which have horrible deformities and/or diseases. Thoughts?

[Zealous Donkey 0]

The link in the OP is broken.

This isn't the same site as the OPs link but it still tells the story. http://www.justnews.com/news/18657435/detail.html

[timwakefield 68]

This isn't the same site as the OPs link but it still tells the story. http://www.justnews.com/news/18657435/detail.html

Thanks, and goddamit what a horrible story.

[Zealous Donkey 0]

Thanks, and goddamit what a horrible story.

What's so horrible about it? The result was the same. What is it that makes this worse than a normal abortion?

[LongLiveYorke 38]

The link in the OP is broken.

It's not broken, we just chose to not have it work. It's not a link until it's posted onto the internet.

[Sal Paradise 57]

Nah, it's much more dangerous to be in one's father's seminal vesicles. You have a 1 in several billion chance of even seeing daylight.

but a 1 in 1 chance of seeing the business end of a tube sock

[Zealous Donkey 0]

Wow all this and you guys haven't even gotten to the grayer issues of forcible rape resulting in pregnancy, pregnancies which carry a huge risk for the mother, and fetuses in utero which have horrible deformities and/or diseases. Thoughts?

Rape is obviously a horrible crime, but it has nothing to do with offspring of the rapist. The rapist should be punished not his offspring. If a pregnancy needs to be terminated to prevent the imminent death of the mother then I believe that would be a case where abortion should be legal. The problem with most 'Health of the mother' clauses is that it can be so broadly intrepeted. Every pregnacy provides a risk to the mother. Should we kill all those with deformities and diseases that are alive today?

[Nimue1995 1]

What's so horrible about it? The result was the same. What is it that makes this worse than a normal abortion?

Once the child takes a breath, it's a living human being and killing it is murder(which is the present day definition). Not difficult to figure out why this story is horrible.

[Nimue1995 1]

Rape is obviously a horrible crime, but it has nothing to do with offspring of the rapist. The rapist should be punished not his offspring. If a pregnancy needs to be terminated to prevent the imminent death of the mother then I believe that would be a case where abortion should be legal. The problem with most 'Health of the mother' clauses is that it can be so broadly intrepeted. Every pregnacy provides a risk to the mother. Should we kill all those with deformities and diseases that are alive today?

In Old Testament days rape victims that were raped out in the fields were not punished in any way but victims of rape in a city were considered to be complicit since they didn't call out so they were stoned. So much for caring about any child the victim might have been carrying. Of course the victim did have the option of marrying their rapist.

[timwakefield 68]

Rape is obviously a horrible crime, but it has nothing to do with offspring of the rapist. The rapist should be punished not his offspring.

Yes but you ignored a few points which make pregnancy by rape unique. First the pro-life argument that you shouldn't have sex if you can't accept the consequences obviously doesn't apply in these cases. But much more importantly, the mother simply may not want the child since it is a result of being raped. You think the law should be that if you are raped you must absolutely carry the child to term? I think you're underestimating how emotionally and psychologically scarring that can be for the mother. Of course adoption is an option, but only after a forced pregnancy.

[Zealous Donkey 0]

Yes but you ignored a few points which make pregnancy by rape unique. First the pro-life argument that you shouldn't have sex if you can't accept the consequences obviously doesn't apply in these cases. But much more importantly, the mother simply may not want the child since it is a result of being raped. You think the law should be that if you are raped you must absolutely carry the child to term? I think you're underestimating how emotionally and psychologically scarring that can be for the mother. Of course adoption is an option, but only after a forced pregnancy.

My position is that an unborn baby is still a human and has a right to life. It is that child's one and only chance to ever exist. I won't pretend to even try and understand the trauma (both physical and psychological) of rape. What is the penalty for the rapist? He gets 4 years and the baby gets the death penalty? My point is that the punishment for that should fall on the rapist, not on the baby. Yes, I do think they should carry the child to term, like you said, they have the opportunity to put the child up for adoption. Let me concede this point to you for now though. Say a forced pregnancy(and resulting trauma) caused by rape is deemed substantially severe enough to warrant the killing of the baby. But lets make abortion illegal except in this instance and in cases where the mothers life is in imminent danger. How would that effect the number of abortions performed in this country?

[vbnautilus 48]

Rape is obviously a horrible crime, but it has nothing to do with offspring of the rapist. The rapist should be punished not his offspring.

The rapist should be punished, not his victim. Someone else should not be able to decide that you are going to raise a child you had no part in conceiving.

Should we kill all those with deformities and diseases that are alive today?

There are important and obvious differences between killing a fetus and killing a living person. A better question for your side would be should we kill a fetus that has an obvious deformity?

My position is that an unborn baby is still a human and has a right to life. It is that child's one and only chance to ever exist.

The position that nothing which could ever become a human life can ever be interfered with is simply untenable, because we can trace that human life all the way back to the sperm and beyond. You have picked an arbitrary point in its development to grant this organism full human rights.

I won't pretend to even try and understand the trauma (both physical and psychological) of rape. What is the penalty for the rapist? He gets 4 years and the baby gets the death penalty?

There is no baby. There is a collection of cells with less consciousness than an ant. To save this ant you are sentencing the mother to sacrificing her body to a violent criminal.

My point is that the punishment for that should fall on the rapist, not on the baby.

This is a false choice.

Let me concede this point to you for now though. Say a forced pregnancy(and resulting trauma) caused by rape is deemed substantially severe enough to warrant the killing of the baby. But lets make abortion illegal except in this instance and in cases where the mothers life is in imminent danger. How would that effect the number of abortions performed in this country?

The number of safe, illegal abortions would go down, while the number of unsafe, legal abortions would go up.

[Zealous Donkey 0]

The rapist should be punished, not his victim. Someone else should not be able to decide that you are going to raise a child you had no part in conceiving.

No, just take away the ability to have the child killed. They don't have to raise him/her.

There are important and obvious differences between killing a fetus and killing a living person. A better question for your side would be should we kill a fetus that has an obvious deformity?

The differences are in the empathetic responses(or lack thereof) of society. Both are human life before they are killed and both are equally dead after they are killed.

The position that nothing which could ever become a human life can ever be interfered with is simply untenable, because we can trace that human life all the way back to the sperm and beyond

I am talking about interfering with an individual human life and not any potential human life.

. You have picked an arbitrary point in its development to grant this organism full human rights

Isn't that what the other side has done? Doesn't it make sense if we are going to pick a point that it would be at conception as opposed to anytime before it leaves the mothers womb? Where would you make it?

There is no baby. There is a collection of cells with less consciousness than an ant. To save this ant you are sentencing the mother to sacrificing her body to a violent criminal.

A lack of consciousness is not a reason to destroy a human life. Couldn't you also say that an adult human is a "collection of cells"

The number of safe, illegal abortions would go down, while the number of unsafe, legal abortions would go up.

You are saying the total number of abortions would be higher than they are now? or equal? Either way I think you incorrect. The number would go way down. Granted, you would have different problems without easy solutions but there is little doubt IMO that the number would go way down.

[vbnautilus 48]

No, just take away the ability to have the child killed. They don't have to raise him/her.

They do for nine months.

The differences are in the empathetic responses(or lack thereof) of society. Both are human life before they are killed and both are equally dead after they are killed.

The differences are not only in the responses of the society. A zygote without a nervous system does not feel pain, and is not conscious. An ant is equally as alive as you are and yet is not afforded the same rights.

I am talking about interfering with an individual human life and not any potential human life.

You keep speaking as if where to draw the line is a settled issue, but it most certainly isn't.

Isn't that what the other side has done?

Yes, in a way that is what all sides have done. The difference is that you are pretending that your line is absolute and not arbitrarily drawn. We should be talking about our reasons for drawing the line in a certain place and defending those reasons. You just keep stating your assumption about when human rights begin without any real reasons.

Doesn't it make sense if we are going to pick a point that it would be at conception as opposed to anytime before it leaves the mothers womb? Where would you make it?

I'm bolding this because I think it is the real question underlying all of this. I think we afford rights and responsibilities based on the relevant qualities of the individual. For example, we don't give children the right to vote because we don't think they have the capacity to have that responsibility (even though they are human life!). We make it illegal to mistreat dogs because we know from the way they act that they experience suffering in a way that is very similar to the way we do (even though they are not human life!). We DONT make it illegal to kill ants because they don't appear to share with us the relevant qualities of consciousness and suffering. So I think the question with regards to developing humans is at which point in development we feel they have the relevant qualities of consciousness. To most of us it is clear that a four-celled zygote does not, but that an eight-month fetus does. There is a gray area in between that deserves study, but its no surprise to me that the law basically respects this intuition about the endpoints.

A lack of consciousness is not a reason to destroy a human life. Couldn't you also say that an adult human is a "collection of cells"

It's not a reason to destroy. It's a reason that destroying a zygote is different from destroying a 34 year old.

You are saying the total number of abortions would be higher than they are now? or equal? Either way I think you incorrect. The number would go way down. Granted, you would have different problems without easy solutions but there is little doubt IMO that the number would go way down.

I answered that because you asked directly, but I don't actually think that this prediction is so relevant for the moral discussion. If its wrong to kill them, the consequences of making it illegal are not really the issue.

[Zealous Donkey 0]

They do for nine months.

Yes, this I do believe.

The differences are not only in the responses of the society. A zygote without a nervous system does not feel pain, and is not conscious. An ant is equally as alive as you are and yet is not afforded the same rights.

A zygote is not going to become an ant. A zygote is going to become a human. It is not one thing becoming another, it is a human in an early stage of development. Destroying a zygote is destroying a human being. It does not make sense to me to legalize destroying a human life due to lack of nervous system or level of consciousness, especilly when time and growth will cause development of the nervous system and consciousness.

You keep speaking as if where to draw the line is a settled issue, but it most certainly isn't.

Since there is so much uncertainty, and , we are dealing with a life/death issue, I say we should give the benefit of the doubt to human life. We are talking about abortion here. A women finds out she is pregnant, she has a human in the early stage of development in her womb. I say no one should be able to take action to end the existance of that life.

Yes, in a way that is what all sides have done. The difference is that you are pretending that your line is absolute and not arbitrarily drawn. We should be talking about our reasons for drawing the line in a certain place and defending those reasons. You just keep stating your assumption about when human rights begin without any real reasons.

If you can undo a pregnancy without destroying something then go ahead. But don't just change the name and then decide because you are calling it something different(like zygote or fetus) that you aren't actually destroying a human life. Again it is a matter of time and size only.

I think we afford rights and responsibilities based on the relevant qualities of the individual. For example, we don't give children the right to vote because we don't think they have the capacity to have that responsibility (even though they are human life!). We make it illegal to mistreat dogs because we know from the way they act that they experience suffering in a way that is very similar to the way we do (even though they are not human life!). We DONT make it illegal to kill ants because they don't appear to share with us the relevant qualities of consciousness and suffering.

This is an issue of existing or not existing. This is something I don't think we should be deciding, especially taking an action to destroy an actively developing human life.

So I think the question with regards to developing humans is at which point in development we feel they have the relevant qualities of consciousness. To most of us it is clear that a four-celled zygote does not, but that an eight-month fetus does. There is a gray area in between that deserves study, but its no surprise to me that the law basically respects this intuition about the endpoints.

You talk about a zygote and eight month old fetus as two distinctly different entities. They are the same separated only by time and growth. Why is it Ok to destroy based on quality of consciousness? To me this is all the more reason that they should be protected by the law.

I answered that because you asked directly, but I don't actually think that this prediction is so relevant for the moral discussion. If its wrong to kill them, the consequences of making it illegal are not really the issue.

Yes, this goes back to earlier political debate about reducing the number of abortions. It is a separate issue that hasn't been discussed in this thread.

[CaneBrain 95]

What's so horrible about it? The result was the same. What is it that makes this worse than a normal abortion?

This is like saying that death by public disembowelment is the same as death by lethal injection. Results the same, right?

[vbnautilus 48]

A zygote is not going to become an ant. A zygote is going to become a human. It is not one thing becoming another, it is a human in an early stage of development. Destroying a zygote is destroying a human being. It does not make sense to me to legalize destroying a human life due to lack of nervous system or level of consciousness, especilly when time and growth will cause development of the nervous system and consciousness.

Time and growth may or may not cause that development. Remember that more than half of fertilized embryos are never born, and the mother is often unaware of that pregnancy. The inconsistency in your position is that some sperm and eggs are also going to become humans but its apparently ok to kill those. What you need to specify for me is why the process of fertilization causes something magical to happen that imbues the developing organism with rights - is it because only diploid cells have rights? What is it? As I've said previously, "potential to be human" is not a distinct event in time, its a process of increasing likelihood which does not start with fertilization.

Since there is so much uncertainty, and , we are dealing with a life/death issue, I say we should give the benefit of the doubt to human life. We are talking about abortion here. A women finds out she is pregnant, she has a human in the early stage of development in her womb. I say no one should be able to take action to end the existance of that life.

I disagree with the assumption that all life/death situations should default to life. If the issue were that simple, people wouldn't be so divided about it. Death enables life and is part of it; most of the cells in our body have mechanisms built in to trigger their own death when its best for the organism. The position that all death is negative and all life is positive is not on solid ground.

If you can undo a pregnancy without destroying something then go ahead. But don't just change the name and then decide because you are calling it something different(like zygote or fetus) that you aren't actually destroying a human life. Again it is a matter of time and size only.

Then don't kill a sperm and say that you aren't actually destroying human life. It's only a matter of time before that sperm becomes a human life.

This is an issue of existing or not existing. This is something I don't think we should be deciding, especially taking an action to destroy an actively developing human life.

We do make that decision. We decide whether to conceive a child or not. I "killed" several potential children just last night that I could have incubated inside my wife. They may have existed as humans had I not prevented that with birth control. The fact is that this thing women grow inside them is not even a separately viable organism until a certain point in development. It is a part of our own bodies, and the process of it separating from us and achieving its own rights is gradual.

You talk about a zygote and eight month old fetus as two distinctly different entities. They are the same separated only by time and growth.

Time and growth changes everything. There's no reason that things need to be treated with the same rights at all points in their development, and they aren't. (children can't drive or vote, etc. just because one day they will probably be adults).

Why is it Ok to destroy based on quality of consciousness? To me this is all the more reason that they should be protected by the law.

First, one of the principles upon which many moral decisions rest is that we try to avoid causing suffering. If the organism is not capable of suffering, its a different kind of act to harm it. Second, we also grant rights based on the ability to choose and be responsible for choices, and as a growing human gains those things s/he gains more and more independent rights from the parents. We treat the parents as decreasingly responsible for what happens to their children over time. At the very start, one way or another parents hold the responsibility for the existence or nonexistence of their offspring.

[SuitedAces21 2,722]

vb, you have the patience of a saint.

[Zealous Donkey 0]

Time and growth may or may not cause that development. Remember that more than half of fertilized embryos are never born, and the mother is often unaware of that pregnancy.

I only ask that the fertilized embryos get the same chance of survival as the other fertilized embryos. A fertilized embryo that is destroyed has no chance.

The inconsistency in your position is that some sperm and eggs are also going to become humans but its apparently ok to kill those. What you need to specify for me is why the process of fertilization causes something magical to happen that imbues the developing organism with rights - is it because only diploid cells have rights? What is it? As I've said previously, "potential to be human" is not a distinct event in time, its a process of increasing likelihood which does not start with fertilization.

Isn't that when the genetic structure is in place? I ask you because I am not planning to go out and gain a doctorate in Genetics or Microbiology anytime soon. I am a simple blackjack and roulette dealer. Lets imagine the spinning roulette wheel and let it represent the egg. Now lets picture the ball spinning in its groove around the wheel in the opposite direction. There are things that can happen that prevent the ball from ever dropping in a numbered slot. The ball could bounce out, the ball could float, or the dealer could remove the ball before it drops. If any of these things happen there is no consequence whatsoever. There is no way to know where the ball would have dropped if it would have dropped at all. No one is paid and nothing is collected by the house. Once the ball drops in a slot it immediately becomes a number. The wheel and the ball have come together to create a winning number. Now that the number has been marked winning wagers are paid and the losers are collected. The only way not to pay the winning number would be to cheat.

I disagree with the assumption that all life/death situations should default to life. If the issue were that simple, people wouldn't be so divided about it. Death enables life and is part of it; most of the cells in our body have mechanisms built in to trigger their own death when its best for the organism. The position that all death is negative and all life is positive is not on solid ground.

This is true. Ok, then lets allow the "mechanisms built in to trigger their own death" decide when it is best for the organism to die. Lets not allow someone else to decide based on their convenience.

Then don't kill a sperm and say that you aren't actually destroying human life. It's only a matter of time before that sperm becomes a human life.

There is no way to know if any given sperm will ever actually fertilize an egg. As you know only one sperm fertilizes an egg and the losers (millions) don't' get a second chance. So if we are going to assign rights to a human life I think it makes sense that it should be when the odds of existance jump from 1 in several million to 1 in 2.

We do make that decision. We decide whether to conceive a child or not. I "killed" several potential children just last night that I could have incubated inside my wife. They may have existed as humans had I not prevented that with birth control.

Maybe you did, maybe you didn't. We will never know.

The fact is that this thing women grow inside them is not even a separately viable organism until a certain point in development. It is a part of our own bodies, and the process of it separating from us and achieving its own rights is gradual.

It's not going to be viable on its own for quite some time after it is born. Some adults aren't viable. If I am not understanding what the word viable means then I apologize. I take it to mean 'survive'.

Time and growth changes everything. There's no reason that things need to be treated with the same rights at all points in their development, and they aren't. (children can't drive or vote, etc. just because one day they will probably be adults).

We are talking about the one and only chance at existence. We don't get to decide that. We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.The way I read this, the only way an abortion can be performed is to save the life of the mother.

Second, we also grant rights based on the ability to choose and be responsible for choices, and as a growing human gains those things s/he gains more and more independent rights from the parents. We treat the parents as decreasingly responsible for what happens to their children over time. At the very start, one way or another parents hold the responsibility for the existence or nonexistence of their offspring.

The law should be doing its best to make sure that parents do not violate the unalienable right to life of their offspring.

[Zealous Donkey 0]

This is like saying that death by public disembowelment is the same as death by lethal injection. Results the same, right?

I don't understand your point. If anything a "properly" performed abortion would more resemble disembowelment than it would a lethal injection. Either one performed on an innocent is tragic. The end result is exactly the same in both cases.

[vbnautilus 48]

I only ask that the fertilized embryos get the same chance of survival as the other fertilized embryos. A fertilized embryo that is destroyed has no chance.

I bring up the chance of becoming human because that seems to be your criteria for treating something as human. You are saying that it has human rights because it is going to be human. But what chance is enough? 1 in 1000? 1 in 2? More on this below.

Isn't that when the genetic structure is in place? I ask you because I am not planning to go out and gain a doctorate in Genetics or Microbiology anytime soon.

Is that important? Are you saying that somehow having a complete genetic code is what grants the organism rights?

I am a simple blackjack and roulette dealer. Lets imagine the spinning roulette wheel and let it represent the egg. Now lets picture the ball spinning in its groove around the wheel in the opposite direction. Now there are things that can happen that prevent the ball from ever dropping in a numbered slot. The ball could bounce out, the ball could float, or the dealer could remove the ball before it drops. If any of these things happen there is no consequence whatsoever. There is know way to know where the ball would have dropped if it would have dropped at all. No one is paid and nothing is collected by the house. Once the ball drops in a slot it immediately becomes a number. The wheel and the ball have come together to create a winning number. Now that the number has been marked winning wagers are paid and the losers are collected. The only way not to pay the winning number would be to cheat.

I doubt being a blackjack dealer is so simple. :)But as to your metaphor, what is misleading about it is that in roulette there is a discrete moment at which the number is decided, where possibility becomes reality. Before that point the final number is unknown, after that point, it is known. With a developing organism there is no corresponding point in time really. The wheel continues to spin even after fertilization, so to speak.

This is true. Ok, then lets allow the "mechanisms built in to trigger their own death" decide when it is best for the organism to die. Lets not allow someone else to decide based on their convenience.

Maybe one of the built-in mechanisms here is the decision of the mother.

There is no way to know if any given sperm will ever actually fertilize an egg. As you know only one sperm fertilizes an egg and the losers (millions) don't' get a second chance. So if we are going to assign rights to a human I think it makes sense that it should be when the odds of human life jump from 1 in several million to 1 in 2.

I just don't think picking some level of odds that something will become human is really how we should be making this decision. It doesn't really seem to be how we make other distinctions about what deserves rights and what doesn't. Why should a human be afforded any rights at all? Answering that question, I think, yields some insight into how we are really making these decisions, and I really don't think it has to do with odds.

It's not going to be viable on its own for quite some time after it is born. Some adults aren't viable. If I am not understanding what the word viable means then I apologize. I take it to mean 'survive'.

Yes, that's what I meant, sorry to be obscure. The fetus is not an independent organism, it is part of its mother, not too much unlike her arm is part of her.

We are talking about the one and only chance at existence. We don't get to decide that.

Sure we do. And why shouldn't we decide the existence of our offspring? We also decide their genetic makeup by selecting our mate. It is an act of creation that we control.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.The way I read this, the only way an abortion can be performed is to save the life of the mother. The law should be doing its best to make sure that parents do not violate the unalienable right to life of their offspring.

This part of your argument contains a logical fallacy called "begging the question". The issue at stake is whether embryos should enjoy the same rights as adult humans, and your comments here only make sense if we already assume that they should. For instance, you assume that "all men" refers to men, women, and their embryos, but that's exactly the point of contention. (Also, I'm not sure why this document is important - does the declaration of independence even have any legal consequences?)Anyways, I think we are pretty close to going in circles here. I appreciate your thoughts in this thread, I think its been a good discussion, so thanks.