Abortion, since I haven't seen this thread yet

Great Debates
81

So we may as well kill the child first, eh? Somehow I don’t think that’s a reasonable justification.

Besides, statistics show that the incidence of child abuse rose DRAMATICALLY after abortion was legalized in 1973. (Report of the National Center of Child Abuse and Neglect, U.S. Dept of Health and Services, 1973-1982.) During just the first ten years, child abuse increased by 500 percent! Instead of a dramatic reduction in child abuse, we got exactly the opposite result.

This should come as no surprise. After all, if we treat children as being expendable before birth, then some people are bound to treat them that way after birth. When the burden of nurturing a child becomes onerous, a frustrated parent can very well say, “I should have aborted you before you were born!”

BTW, some pro-choicers dismiss these statistics, claiming that they’re merely due to stricter laws on reporting child abuse. Please note, hwoever, that these laws were enacted in the mid-80’s – whereas the statistics date back to the 1970s! No, the rise in child abuse statistics is precisely what it appears to be.

82

I literally ASKED for the justification of immoral abortion, and we are still arguing way after the fact. Let me be more specific, then.

  1. When is it considered a baby, specifically?
  2. When is murder ever justifiable?
  3. Can either of these be done by both using religion and NOT using religion? I am willing to accept an argument that is in some ways founded on the non-god related ten commandments, but don’t give me deuteronomy.

If any pro-lifers would care to step up to bat, please do so. You finally have the opportunity of doing what you want to do: change some’s mind.

83

1 & 3) I don’t speak for all “pro lifers”, but for me…the term “baby” is not always useful in a discussion like this…it often has an emotional context rather than a developmental context. Usually, the argument is framed in terms of whether the zygote/embryo/fetus has “human” or “person” traits. For a non-religious approach to these concepts, may I suggest

http://www.terravista.pt/enseada/1881/lifebegi.html

  1. Of course “murder”, as a legal concept, is never justifiable. If you mean when is “killing” justifiable…I guess thats an argument that encompasses a lot of territory including the death penalty. My own approach (perhaps different than some other pro lifers) is often referred to as a “consistent ethic of life” or “seamless garment”

http://www.seamless-garment.org/
http://www.consistentlife.org/
http://madprof.home.mindspring.com/ethic.html

84

Thanks, I’ll follow those through tonight and get back to ya!

85

I’d be careful saying that pro-choicers view abortion as a morally neutral choice, like what color socks to wear or what to have for dinner. As a pro-choicer myself, I certainly don’t take such a cavalier attitude to such a weighty decision, and <sweeping generalization> would say most others probably don’t either </sweeping generalization>. Of course it’s a difficult, morally charged decision - and a hard one to make. I would doubt that any woman would say, “Dang, got myself pregnant again–guess I’ll go have an abortion.” I doubt pro-choicers think that abortions are such great things that everyone should have one (sorry, men); rather, I, for one, advocate that the ability to have one should not be outlawed. That the choice about her life and her future should not be taken away from a developed, reasoning woman.

I’m also not sure that legalized abortion = increase in child abuse either. It seems to me that that’s not a valid causal relationship and ignores a lot of other factors, of which I’m sure we could all rattle off a list. There are some parents who have children they didn’t want and are abusive - perhaps they would’ve been better off not having that child. It certainly would’ve been better for the abused child, in my opinion.

I think that some of the whole abortion crux comes down to potential humanity v. current personal freedoms. For me, people should have the right to their choice between something that has the potential to become a child and what’s best for their current situation in life.

86

Admittedly, some pro-choicers may not view it that way. However, if abortion is morally justified but not a moral requirement (as pro-choicers do say), then it IS morally neutral.

Admittedly, this speaks to the “abortion on demand” crowd, more than anyone else. A lot of people take a middle ground on this issue, saying (for example) that it’s acceptable but not something they’re comfortable with. However, if they’re not comfortable with the concept, then perhaps they need to explore the reasons behind their discomfort.

I’ll grant that a causal relationship has not been PROVEN; however, there is ample evidence for such.

Moreover, if pro-choicers are to argue that abortion will reduce child abuse, then it’s their duty to provide the evidence for that claim. Merely saying “I think that will be the case…” isn’t a compelling argument.

Besides which, killing one’s child is the ULTIMATE form of child abuse. In other words, it boils down, once again, to the humanity of the unborn.

87

Please note, however, that the pro-lifers were busy answering the various arguments raised in favor of abortion.

The more relevant question would be, “When is it considered to be a living human being?” There are numerous scientific reasons to believe that the unborn child is a living human, but here are some of the arguments:

http://members.aol.com/CPLBO/Beckwith.3.html
http://members.aol.com/CPLBO/Beckwith.4.html

“Murder” (as opposed to “killing”) specifically refers to the unjustified taking of a life.

Are there any situations wherein the mother’s rights would trump the child’s right to live? I think not. The right to life is THE most fundamental right a person can have,and no other rights can take precedence over that.

There are various religious arguments (including quotes from Jeremiah and the Psalms). As you can see though, I have focused exclusively on the non-religous arguments.

88

As I understand it, murder deals with legality; ie-it isn’t murder when they are killed under the death penalty. The difference is pretty arbitrary, though. The difference between stealing and thieving is similar.

Anyway, been reading those links. Compelling. I especially like using the sleeping/unconscious/coma person to fetus comparison.

So the thread came where I thought is would, anyway, in how we define life. This is truly the crux of the issue.

I found the arbitrary definition in JTC’s link of personhood to be a pretty common idea; ie-the fetus is not a person, regardless of whether or not it could be. I think I said the same thing earlier.

I think all pro-choicers here should read these links, they are pretty damn coherent. I haven’t switched sides, but instead have to start…
[thinking]

89

I think this is where the pro-life and pro-choice camps disagree fundamentally.

Each individual has his or her own moral code. Many people adopt the code of their religion, and many religions have definite ideas about when “life” begins. We’re trying to stay away from religious arguments, but the differences among religions (many fundamentalist Christian flavors would be against abortion in any circumstance, using JTC’s argument above or a corollary to it; Judaism allows for abortion in certain circumstances, although I can’t give you chapter and verse) is one argument against using any religiously-derived definition of “life”.

“Rights” are human constructs, however they are derived. My right to wave my arms around ends at the tip of your nose. My right physically to express my disagreement with you ends at your property line. (I mean, you can’t trespass if I don’t want you to.) My right to say whatever I want ends if I shout “Fire” in a crowded theater or if I incite a riot. That is, my rights are circumscribed by (1) the rights of other individuals, and (2) the rights of society as a whole.

Rights grow as human beings develop. No one under 14 has a right to drive. No one under 18 has a right to vote. No one under 21 (in most places) has a right to drink. No one under age 35 has a right to be President. We have always differentiated people, and the rights they may have, by their developmental stage. Why can’t you drive if you’re 8? Because you’re not mature enough, either physically or emotionally, to handle a motor vehicle. Why can’t you drink until you’re 21? You’re not mature enough (so the theory goes) to drink responsibly, e.g., without driving. And so on.

What abortion boils down to is the right of the woman to be an independent individual “versus” the right of the fetus to develop its potential to be a human being.

But what rights does/should a fetus have, given its developmental stage? No one claims that a fetus prior to viability (approx. 22-24 weeks) can survive outside the mother’s womb. The fetus’s right to develop, therefore, depends on the mother voluntarily subordinating her right to be independent. (I know there are philosophers here who can help me on these concepts… please? :slight_smile: )

Should a fetus at any stage of development have the “right to life”? Well, for example, the medical profession defines “living” to mean “having a heartbeat”. By that definition, a 6-week old fetus is “living”. (I’m too tired to look up a cite, but any obstetrics textbook should have something along these lines.) Should abortions before 6 weeks be allowed?

The fetus is potential life. The mother is actual life. In my book, actual beats potential. I can’t give you any great analogies. As long as the fetus’s potential is at the sufferance of the mother, the mother must be able to make the decision to terminate her pregnancy. Otherwise, you are making the judgment that the fetus’s right to potential life is greater than the mother’s right to actual life - to a full, complete life as an independent, decision-making, consequence-suffering human being.

Once the fetus can live outside the womb, its potential for life is much closer to actuality. I think it reasonable to restrict, but not to prohibit, abortion after viability. Specifically, abortion should always be available where there is a threat to the mother’s life or health. Again, we are dealing with potential life against actual life. No one has ever explained to my satisfaction a reason to choose the potential life over the actual one where that is the decision. (The mother can choose to sacrifice herself, of course, but no one should force her to do so.)

As to JTC’s quote at the top of this post (remember that far back? and thank you for staying with me in my delirium) “Are there any situations wherein the mother’s rights would trump the child’s right to live? I think not.”, that is an extreme position. What about abortion of a fetus that has a condition incompatible with life (ancephaly, severe spina bifeda, etc.)? What about abortion where the mother’s life really is in danger, say from eclampsia? Killing is often justified by society, either with complete exoneration of the killer (self-defense) or with reduced punishment (extreme emotional disturbance).

If the existence of the fetus threatens the life of the person it is dependent on for its very existence, and you have a choice between saving one or the other (or, in the case of a pre-viable fetus, one or none), it seems to me the reasonable choice is to save the one (in the latter scenario), and to save the one whose life is threatened (the self-defender) in the former.

Sorry for the length of this post, but it’s late and I’m tired.

Peace.

90

Your concept of rights might need a wee bit of adjustment, but it isn’t too bad. The “right to drive” is pretty damn different than a “right to life,” as far as I can see. But, if we are terming rights to be restrictions on absolute freedom enforced by some legislative body, then you’re right on. If you feel rights exist without government there’s a whole other argument.

Anyway, this viability issue isn’t exactly a real strong argument. Viability assumes there is one shining moment (which will legally be semi-arbitrary, like consentual sex limits and drinking ages) when a fetus is also a person. I can’t agree with this. There can be a legal time-limit set, but that doesn’t mean there aren’t responsible 18 year-olds who could drink or 15 year-old who can drive. Restrictions of this sort are also not explicitely life-threatening.

Besides that, it does not seem improbable that as medical technologies increase this viability age will decrease until it is a practical possibility to remove a one day old cell cluster and develop it out of the uterus into a full-fledged baby. In this case it seems that, even if abortion is justified now it won’t be later, and we can go ahead and make a law banning abortion after this viability point as opposed to setting a strict time limit. Clearly pro-choicers might drop off a bit, but there would still be a significant number of adherents to the idea and the law would have a hard time getting passed.

I’m still not sure about the issue, however. More thinking required :slight_smile:

91

Actually, that is a valid point … and for this reason, every pro-life organization that I know makes an exception when the mother’s life is in imminent mortal danger. (In other words, the mere possiblity of a mortal threat would not suffice.)

However, many physicians don’t regard those as abortions in the traditional sense. After all, their purpose is to save both mother and child, if possible – and if not, to save whichever one they can. Again though, this is a case where the child’s right to life must be balanced against the mother’s right to life. It’s not a situation wherein the mother’s other, less fundamental rights are given priority over the child’s very existence.

92

Regardless of one’s moral code though, all other rights are contingent on the right to live. As I said, the right to life is THE most fundamental of human rights – REGARDLESS of what one’s moral code is.

Common sense dictates this. A dead person can not have the right to property, or to free speech, or to worship.

And that’s why the mother’s “rights” can not trump the child’s right to life – except in the extreme case where the mother’s own existence is imminently endangered.

93

quote:

Originally posted by Snickers
quote:

Besides, statistics show that the incidence of child abuse rose DRAMATICALLY after abortion was legalized in 1973. (Report of the National Center of Child Abuse and Neglect, U.S. Dept of Health and Services, 1973-1982.) During just the first ten years, child abuse increased by 500 percent! Instead of a dramatic reduction in child abuse, we got exactly the opposite result.

I’m also not sure that legalized abortion = increase in child abuse either. It seems to me that that’s not a valid causal relationship and ignores a lot of other factors, of which I’m sure we could all rattle off a list.

The increase in child abuse shows the increased hostility towards children that came about as a result of abortion-on-demand. This enactment and the amount of legal procedures it generated did not come with a corresponding program of teaching would-be-parents on how to be parents. Indeed, one may say that the abortion procedures took away from pre-natal care, post-natal care and parenting programs.

94

Well no, the medical profession does NOT define a live human being as “having a heartbeat”. And yes, I DO have cites. From http://www.terravista.pt/enseada/1881/lifebegi.html

"2) Fertilization

Now that we have looked at the formation of the mature haploid sex gametes, the next important process to consider is fertilization. O’Rahilly defines fertilization as:

"… the procession of events that begins when a spermatozoon makes contact with a secondary oocyte or its investments, and ends with the intermingling of maternal and paternal chromosomes at metaphase of the first mitotic division of the zygote. The zygote is characteristic of the last phase of fertilization and is identified by the first cleavage spindle. It is a unicellular embryo."9 (Emphasis added.)

The fusion of the sperm (with 23 chromosomes) and the oocyte (with 23 chromosomes) at fertilization results in a live human being, a single-cell human zygote, with 46 chromosomes—the number of chromosomes characteristic of an individual member of the human species. Quoting Moore:

"Zygote: This cell results from the union of an oocyte and a sperm. A zygote is the beginning of a new human being (i.e., an embryo). The expression fertilized ovum refers to a secondary oocyte that is impregnated by a sperm; when fertilization is complete, the oocyte becomes a zygote."10 (Emphasis added.)

This new single-cell human being immediately produces specifically human proteins and enzymes11 (not carrot or frog enzymes and proteins), and genetically directs his/her own growth and development. (In fact, this genetic growth and development has been proven not to be directed by the mother.)12 Finally, this new human being—the single-cell human zygote—is biologically an individual, a living organism—an individual member of the human species. Quoting Larsen:

"… [W]e begin our description of the developing human with the formation and differentiation of the male and female sex cells or gametes, which will unite at fertilization to initiate the embryonic development of a new individual."13 (Emphasis added.)

In sum, a mature human sperm and a mature human oocyte are products of gametogenesis—each has only 23 chromosomes. They each have only half of the required number of chromosomes for a human being. They cannot singly develop further into human beings. They produce only “gamete” proteins and enzymes. They do not direct their own growth and development. And they are not individuals, i.e., members of the human species. They are only parts—each one a part of a human being. On the other hand, a human being is the immediate product of fertilization. As such he/she is a single-cell embryonic zygote, an organism with 46 chromosomes, the number required of a member of the human species. This human being immediately produces specifically human proteins and enzymes, directs his/her own further growth and development as human, and is a new, genetically unique, newly existing, live human individual."

95

Cantrip…whoa. Nicely said. Man, that’s what I wanted to say. Excellent post.

I’ll further some of the ideas put forward by Cantrip. I’ve a friend who’s working on her master’s in genetic counselling. As part of this program, she’s required to spend time counselling couples whose child has been tested and found to be a carrier of some genetic disease or disability. She must break it to them that their child will not be a normal, healthy baby and help them through their options. In these cases, she’s told me, abortion is always an option. And whether or not she’s pro-choice or pro-life (I feel it’s the former, but it doesn’t really matter), it is her duty to make sure the couple knows all of their options. Granted, she doesn’t have to make the choice, the couple does, but the choice is there.

My question: how to pro-lifers feel about this? Is the abortion of such babies a “morally” correct choice to make, or, since abortion should not be allowed, should these babies be born to whatever life they may have? I realize that some children (Down’s syndrome and the like) are not so severly afflicted that they can lead healthy lives. And kudos to the courage and love of such people–I’ve heard they are wonderful human beings. However, some disorders do not allow this: the child may be severly retarded or may not live much past childhood. Are their expenses and pain and suffering justified by the fact that at least they were born? In some cases, people, children might be better off…

And I still don’t see the link between child abuse and abortion. Just because I’m pro-choice does not mean that I can disregard children and go around gleefully hitting each one I can get my hands on. Child abuse rose after 1970, fine–that I totally accept. That we’re an increasingly violent society, yes, that I accept also. But that this child abuse is a direct result of legalized abortion causing people to generally view children as expendable, that doesn’t follow, to me.

I agree with Cantrip–actual beats potential, every day and twice on Sundays.

96

And since the unborn child is an ACTUAL human being, according to all the medical evidence, this point has no bearing on the abortion debate.

97

I feel that it would be better to kill the “baby” before it is born than to bring it into the world when its parents may not care about it.

Beagledave, I apologize and my comments didn’t belong on this post. What is the BBQ pit?

98

(sorry about the 2 seperate messages.)
If abortion was illegalized a parent could still say, “I should have aborted you before you were born!” The only difference would be that they actually had the option.

99

In other words, if you’re going to abuse the child, you may as well go all the way and kill it first. Pardon me for disagreeing.

Abortion does NOT prevent child abuse. It is the killing of an innocent life. If anything, abortion is the ULTIMATE form of child abuse.

100

Naturally. However, if abortion IS a legal option, then the parents would be more likely to express regret at not taking advantage of that marvelous opportunity to rid themselves of an innocent but unwanted burden.

Besides, do you have ANY evidence that abortion resulted in less child abuse? Any evidence whatsoever? In all my years as a pro-life worker, I have never encountered ANY such statistics. In fact, the statistics we do have strongly suggest that abortion had exactly the opposite effect.