Abortion is interrupting an imminent life, right?

Great Debates
1

If you are pro-choice, why do you think it is ok to interrupt a natural life-producing process? Yeah, it may or may not be a life at a certain point in time, but why does that matter? You may or may not be killing a life, but you are killing an “imminent life”… a life which would be there in the future, except you had to disrupt it. Isn’t the only relevant information here: Kid should be here, kid is not, because of you?

Additionally, aren’t you killing someone’s dad when you kill a fetus? Aren’t you depriving a person of a chance at life just because you think it is warranted in your specific case? Do you think you are in a position to rule which is a better scenario, especially when a life is at stake and especially since you can’t see into the future to ascertain the better action?

These are some honest questions that I can’t seem to understand the answer to.

Thanks for your opinions.

2

Is it okay to wear a condom, even though that interrupts a natural, life-producing process? After all, without a condom, there is an X% chance that one would conceive a child.

Not necessarily. There is no guarantee that the fetus would have survived to term if things took their “natural” course. And I put “natural” in quotation marks because modern-day medicine is anything but.

Define “should be here”. Don’t you really mean “would have had X% probability of being here had you not interfered”?

No. Unless you can show me a fetus that already has it’s own children, at least. You’re still playing the probability game. To whit: The fetus would have had an X% chance of surviving to be born, and a Y% chance of siring its own offspring. Add the Z% chance of it becoming president and you’re all of a sudden asking “aren’t you killing the president by aborting a fetus”? Kind of ridiculous, isn’t it?

Many (most?) of those who support abortion don’t view a fetus as being a person. It’s just a pre-person mass of tissues.

I can play that game, too. By aborting a fetus, aren’t you depriving the world of another potential mass murderer, pedophile, or rapist? Since you can’t see into the future, this remains a possibility.

3

Joe Random said it all.

“Why do you think it is ok to interrupt a natural life-producing process?” Well, every time I swat a mosquito or eat chicken or green beans or put weed killer on the dandelions I’m doing that. I had my cats castrated specifically to do that. What’s so great about natural life-producing processes?

Even if you say “Well, I only meant human life”, then it’s an old slippery slope argument. Is menstruation a crime, since an ovum missed its chance to be fertilised?

The simplest thing for you to try to understand, is that most of us who are pro-choice don’t believe that an ovum, blastocyst, embryo or fetus is actually a person just yet.

Yes, true, it could well become a person if it develops. But potential is not actual. You could well become a PhD qualified astrophysicist if you studied really hard, but that doesn’t mean you are one, or that I should treat you as one.

Furthermore, it takes time and effort to realise the potential, and it requires an actual existing person to put that effort in. The actual existing person most closely involved in that has a right to decide whether she wants to host that process or not.

4

My favourite counter:

We are all imminent deaths, by this logic. So why should murder be illegal?

5

You can’t kill “imminent life” because no “imminent life” exists in any present. It’s a conceptual idea predicated on a predicted future. The only life you can kill in the present is the exact sort of life that exists. You may indeed be frustrating a potential person from ever coming into being, but to no more or less of a degree when you simply refrain from impregnating every woman you see, and you certainly can’t rightly call the prevention of a life from ever coming to be in the first place a “murder.”

6

Of course, your counter will be countered with something like “by murdering someone you’re interrupting the natural process of life”. Of course, this ignores the fact that we, as humans, interrupt the “natural” process of life on a daily basis and think nothing of it.

7

[Monty Python]

Every sperm is sacred,
Every sperm is great.
If a sperm is wasted,
God gets quite irate…

[/Monty Python]

:wink:

8

Because no one has an obligation to produce life.

By that logic, abstinence and contraception are “killing an imminent life” as well. A child could have existed, but because you (used a condom/turned down sex), that child will never exist. Gasp!

9

For the same reason that I think it’s ok to interrupt other natural, life-producing processes. I ‘interrupt’ vegetables, cattle, pork, chicken, insects, bacterial infections, etc all the time. Interrupting life-producing processes is positively mundane, it’s that common. And let’s not play semantics, I’m not ‘interrupting’ anything. The fetus isn’t going to pick itself up thirty years down the track after the ‘interruption’ is over, and get back to having its life. It’s not interruption, it’s termination.

Might be relevant to you, but it isn’t to me. I see it as “kid could be here, if you want that to happen. If you don’t want that to happen, here’s one option”
Anyway, what’s this ‘should’ thing mean ? That’s a bit of a value-judgement, isn’t it ? Because Tab A was inserted into Slot B, #1 sperm reached egg and managed to fertilize it, and the egg successfully implanted, that means you need to become a parent ? Maybe in your world, but in mine, only those who want to become parents, ‘should’. See how value-laden that ‘should’ word is ?

Ummm. No. You’re killing a fetus. In my world, male does not equal someone’s dad, just as women does not equal someone’s mother. That fetus may have become a father, it may have become a rocket scientist, president, an abortion doctor, a child abuser, who knows ? My money would be on it becoming just an average ordinary Joe Blow, not anything special or horrible.
But if you are killing someone’s dad, shouldn’t we be figuring out the average number of kids everyone has, and then charging murderers with that number of deaths, in addition to the actual victims death, since they are in fact guilty of killing those future lives, too ?

Yes, I am. I don’t think I owe anyone a chance at life. If I thought that, I’d be permanently pregnant, otherwise how could I deny all those potential possible lives a chance at it ?
I have not seen the great rule book that states “you must do everything in your power to always give the chance of life to another human, no matter the circumstances”. If you find that book that details clearly how I should best live my life, please let me know. It better be free of contradiction, clearly written and fully justified, so there’s no misunderstandings on important points such as how to live my life :wink:

Yes. I think I’m in a much better position to rule what’s best for my life than anyone else. I make many decisions, in fact I make all of them, when I can’t see into the future to ascertain the better option. I use my thoughts, opinions and feelings to determine the better option for me, and then move on, without crippling self-doubt on which option would be best.

I tried to answer honestly, but somehow I don’t think I’ll end up being very helpful. Oh well, I tried.

10

Does everybody agree with this statement right here? Because if so, it is simply not worth ever posting in this forum again.

To address the main concern among you before you answer that question:

There is an obvious need to draw a line here between causation and merely a chain of events. Let’s try to pick the best point in time where this life is imminent.

Hmmm, at what point on a graph would the level of “imminence” raise by an exponential degree? Maybe at conception? When you lay down to have sex, what’s the probability that a life will be produced? 3% maybe (just a WAG). Ok, now when you insert the penis? 3.5%? Ok, now, let’s see what probability there is upon conception? 35% maybe? Is there sharper ascention in the graph after this point? Not really.

Now, if you are comfortable blindfolding yourself and squeezing the trigger of a gun, knowing that there is a 35% probability that you are going to hit and kill a little baby, then this conversation is obviously not for you. If you are not comfortable with this action, then you are like me and am willing to pull that trigger to save my 18 year old daugher’s life of a huge inconvenience and a disgusting reminder of her boyfriend who left her, only if that probability is near +/- 3%, and only one shot.

By the way, this discussion is not about condoms, it’s about abortion.

I’ll post more when I get some answers to my first question.

11

By the way, let me rephrase my Title to “Abortion is killing a x% probable life”.

Then my first question should hav been, “What probability are you willing to change to zero?”

12

Looks like you got plenty of answers, just not the ones you wanted.

Really, there’s no point in getting all emotional in a debate; it clouds your own objectivity and it prevents you from expressing yourself clearly.

13

O, I remember this. Post in the minority here in this forum, and everybody misunderstands you and doesn’t read thoroughly.

I meant my first question in my reply there Cheif.

Good job starting the ball rolling on the deterioration of this thread to arguing about “he said, she said”… :rolleyes:

14

hauss wrote:

“When you lay down to have sex, what’s the probability that a life will be produced? 3% maybe (just a WAG). Ok, now when you insert the penis? 3.5%?”

I think you need to insert the penis to have any chance at all. where did the 3% come from without the penis???

Maybe once you understand the basic facts behind life and nature you will be able to comment on the deeper philosphical grey areas.

15

Like I said, it is best to try to put your emotions aside when participating in a debate.

16

I’ve gotta chime in with my standard “definition of Human Life” as opposed to “Life”, as plagarized from Carl Sagan: http://www.2think.org/abortion.shtml . Someone posted a rebuttal in an earlier thread, but it was not very convincing, at least to me.

Human life starts when the brain develops those physical elements that give us human attributes, in the last trimester. Before that, you only have a Potential Human Life. Sure, it’s an “imment, or x% probable human life”, but in the early stages, it’s still only a potential human life and NOT a human life. We don’t protect all the other forms of potential human life discussed above, why this one?

So - late term abortion bad, but early on, okay.

17

it seems to me that the most reasonable way to approach this is that until a child is born (as in birthed), it is naught but a piece of the would-be mother’s body. any decision pertaining to that would-be child is a decision about the mother’s health.

certainly if everyone agreed on that, there would be no objection to abortion. i agree with it, so i have none.

you made it a discussion about the potential for human life. every human sperm and every human egg holds the potential for human life, and so a condom is an interruption of a “natural life-producing process”. saying at x% chance, a fetus should not be terminated is very much arbitrary. why not x-1%?

now if you want to get into percentages and potentials, the fetus has a 0% chance of survival at just about any point in its development without a host (in the form of a pregnant woman). if there is not a willing host, there is no chance for a kid to come of the whole process. why is a potential child more important than an already-existing woman?

you are assuming 2 HUGE things in this. first, you assume that we are in fact dealing with a kid–i seriously doubt there will be a whole lot of agreement on that. second, you say that this “kid” should be here. what gives you the authority to make that judgement?

perhaps if you wish to debate, you should approach this forum with a more open mind.

18

Why do I think it’s okay to “interrupt a natural life-producing process”? Well, sometimes it’s a matter of the best interest of the actual life, as opposed to the potential life. That’s why we spray for insects around our homes, and put flea-and-tick killing chemicals on our pets, and treat people for flukes and tapeworms and other nasties. Sure, it’s bad for the insects and worms, but it’s better for those of us whom we consider priorities. It’s just my personal judgement, but I give those of us who are already here priority over those of us who might be here. Sometimes, though, it’s a matter of what’s most humane for the potential life. Is it better to live a life of suffering, or to be terminated before you have the capability to suffer? My money’s on the latter.

We interrupt what “should” happen all the time. If we hadn’t intervened seven years ago, the natural process of a heart attack would have killed my father. By your logic, he shouldn’t have been there to give me away at my wedding, because he would have been dead if we hadn’t had to go and interfere. Do I regret interfering with what “should” be? Not for a single second of a single day for the last seven years.

I already know where you’re going to go next: well, of course interference is all right if it’s saving a life. The thing is, who are you to decide what’s okay and what’s not? How is your imperfect judgement any better than that of any other imperfect human being in this world? What qualifies you to be the arbiter of what “should” be, especially when you never have to deal with the fallout of the decision?

As for the whole bit about abortion killing someone’s dad, that’s just too ridiculous for words. Could a fetus eventually become someone’s dad? Sure. If the fetus isn’t miscarried, doesn’t aspirate meconium and die of pneumonia, doesn’t suffer from SIDS or die of measles, doesn’t choke on a peanut, doesn’t die of anaphylaxis, doesn’t get leukemia and die at the age of seven, doesn’t get hit by a car, doesn’t get in a fatal wreck, doesn’t die of a drug overdose, is attracted to women, can find a woman willing to sleep with him, is willing to have children, and isn’t infertile, it could potentially become somebody’s dad. There’s no guarantee that it would be, though, and it’s certainly not anyone’s dad at the time of an abortion.

19

Indeed, I think a logical conclusion would be to have sex as often as physically possible… hang on, maybe the man has a point after all… :slight_smile:

Anyway, this was answered by your point about percentages. But, what if a couple is determined to have sex until they get pregnant. The probability is high, maybe even 99+%. Is it immoral for me to say something that might change their mind? If so, I will rethink my analysis of your position. If not, then please try and explain why this is different to your example

20

I’m pro-life, but this has to be one of the lamest arguments against abortion I’ve ever heard.