Abortion

Great Debates
241

As I said, good luck convincing your fellow pro-choice folk (like me). If the sex was consensual, you get to deal with the consequences of your decision whether you intended them or not. In no other case is killing an innocent person an acceptable method of dealing with unintended consequences of a decision. The idea that it should be is morally repugnant and plays into the worst fears and stereotypes of the pro-life crowd. NO right is absolute, and you don’t get to kill a person you created just because she impacts your freedom.

It would currently be legal for you to deny an infusion of your blood to your five-year-old child. It probably should be legal to make that decision, because it’s not the sort of thing the government should intervene in, though it’s a very gray area to me. But morally, anyone who would make such a decision is no better than a murderer.

Of course, an embryo is not a person. But trust me when I say that that is the philosophical position you want to argue politically. Killing children is simply never going to be a winning issue.

242

And puts her health and life in danger. Why is that always left out? Whether the right to life crowd believes it or not, pregnancy and delivery are life threatening medical procedures. Just because women have babies all the time doesn’t mean they aren’t putting their lives at risk while doing so. I’m having a ganglion cyst removed from my wrist next week. I’ve had to sign a ton of forms for the surgeon, the anesthesiologist and the hospital acknowledging that I might die and that isn’t their fault because I’m doing it of my own free will. Why should a pregnancy be any different? Why should any woman undergo a life threatening procedure that is not of her own free will?

O

Not until people stop framing it as “killing children,” no.

243

I’m not the one framing it that way, the people who believe that an embryo is a person but you can kill it anyway are. If your child puts your life in moderate danger equivalent to the risk from a pregnancy, you aren’t allowed to kill it. (Obviously, there are some narrow exceptions for self-defense, but those aren’t comparable except in sitautions accute danger from the preganacy.)

Of course, an embryo isn’t equivalent to a child. But that’s the point.

244

Tell that to a Jehovah’s Witness. They cannot have an abortion, but they will let their newborns die rather than give them a blood transfusion.

245

If a Jehovah’s Witness asks my opinion I certainly will!

246

Agreed, it is the point. And it’s been made and proven scientifically over and over ad nauseum. You’re expecting people who base their arguments on emotion and religious belief to listen to reason? The fact is you’re not going to convince those people no matter what, which is why “it’s her choice not yours” is now my default stance. It’s not your life, it’s not your body, it doesn’t affect you at all. There are no what ifs. The second you let in what ifs, you get stupid convoluted analogies like the one from Stratocaster earlier. Just no. Get back to me when you* have verifiable proof it’s a person.

*that’s the general you, not you specifically.

247

That’s fine, but don’t forget that there are silent moderates, too. I believe the majority of people in the US have moderate views on abortion, in fact, and plenty of people haven’t made up their mind. I used to be on the fence about abortion. If “MYOB” was the only argument I heard from the pro-choice side, I’d be firmly pro-life now. I wouldn’t feel right leaving it up to individuals if I really thought innocent people were being killed. Don’t abandon both the moral and philosophical high-ground in a mistaken attempt to control the political territory. It won’t (and shouldn’t) work.

248

I don’t think that’s the case. In fact, if you have a citation for that, I’d be very interested. Because it’s such a polarizing issue, it seems most people are very firmly in either one camp or the other. The issue is discussed to death here in the US, and I honestly cannot remember the last time I heard anyone say “I’m not sure…” when asked if they were pro-life or pro-choice. I don’t think the number is as large as you make it out to be here.

As for your being firmly pro life, it appears from your arguments you more or less are, unless a woman can come up with a reason good enough for you to not go through with the pregnancy.

249

My kitty cat (from back in the pre-enlightenment decades when folks did not neuter or spay their pets) had an occasional litter of kittens. After the birth she would inspect them carefully. Sometimes for reasons of her own she would nudge one off to the side and refuse to let it nurse.

I do not know your ethical and moral policy on kittencide by neglect, but what I do know is that she would not have particularly given half a goddam WHAT you thought about it.

Now… the funny thing about it is, that’s more or less the degree of interest that many a pregnant human female is likely to have with regards to your opinion on whether she should or should not terminate that particular pregnancy.

You don’t think she should unless she at least tried to prevent unwanted pregnancies by using birth control? Fine. I may even agree with you. SHE has no particular interest WHAT you or I think.

You don’t think she should unless it’s risky to her own health or life if she doesn’t? SHE does not seem inclined to consult you.

You think the United States of America should make them all illegal, making the volitional termination of pregnancy an arrestible crime? SHE isn’t going to be dissuaded by the opinions of the United States of America on the subject, either, not as long as she can find a way to do what SHE thinks is the most appropriate thing to do.

It really IS an absolute right. You can think of it as nature’s way of making up for PMS and urinary tract infections and stretch marks if you like. It IS, I suppose, a right that has been and can be trammeled on and interfered with, but I think it is natural for pregnant women to consider themselves the ultimate arbiters of those moral decisions.

250

Let me be clear that I am, in fact, (moderately) pro-choice. I have absolutely no problems with a woman having an abortion in the first trimester, for whatever reason she thinks is appropriate. An embryo in the first trimester is a lump of cells, and she can do what she likes with it.

Over the course of the second trimester, it becomes increasingly unclear, as noted in this thread, what faculties of personhood a fetus has, and it becomes correspondingly fuzzy morally. I am very strongly disinclined to insert my own feelings on the matter into what is very obviously a very difficult and personal choice. I am even more disinclined to inject government intervention at this point. If a woman were to ask for my personal counsel in choosing whether to abort in the second trimester, I would urge her (among other things) to weigh the likely stage of development of the fetus against the situation she is in, while strongly emphasizing her right to make a descision herself, even one I would disagree with. I would feel comfortable modifying my position based on scientific evidence.

By the third trimester, I would argue that an abortion should take place only under extreme circumstances, which I understand is the case today. I would not make it my mission to persuade women not to have abortions at this stage, because I am not in a position to pass judgment, never having been (and never likely to become) pregnant (being a man, and all). If asked, I would encourage a woman to learn about the development of the fetus at that stage, and to seriously consider other options; however I would respect whatever descision is made. I would not object in principle to legal restrictions on or prohibition of abortion during the third trimester, but I would be very cautious about creating uninteded consequences of any legislation. I would support efforts to make third term abortions rare by providing a strong support system to mothers through private initiatives and government programs, and by promoting adoption and other alternatives to abortion, which I think is more likely to have a positive outcome than criminalization.

I don’t expect anyone to give a damn what I think, except for people who read message board threads about abortion and people who ask for my opinion.

Let me say again that I don’t care what anyone does to their own body if it doesn’t affect another person. If it DOES affect another person, then it would be immoral for me to keep silent, just as it would be in cases of rape, slavery, abuse, or murder. The difference is whether a person is being harmed. Feel free to rape or enslave any zygotes, trees, plastic dolls, coffee mugs, or brine shrimp in my vicinity. You’ll get no guff from me. Do it to a PERSON, and I’ll speak up.

251

Your opinions seem very well reflected by the Roe decision itself, Alan Smithee. I think it is still a good compromise for most Americans. Folks like me (on the one hand) and the folks who’d like abortion to be very tightly restricted or fully illegal (on the other) are the outliers.

252

This thread is at 6 pages and it could easily go another 20 pages. The Catholic church, and all Christian churches for that matter, value the live of every unborn child because we believe that every life is holy. Even a cell that splits in the first week.

Moreover, we believe that life comes from spirit. I personally believe we all exist as spiritual entities before we come into this world. Yes, I said we exist as spirit BEFORE we come into this world. Get your head around that. However, I wasted my time trying to explain the concept of “spirit” on another board so I wont go into it.

Most of the liberals on this board ENJOY quarrelling over topics like this for no other reason because they like to quarrel. For all those that are trying to convey why we should NOT see an unborn child as purely strands of DNA you are wasting your time. This is similar to the debate whether God exists or not. If these people cant see themselves as “holy” temples of God then how do you expect them to see anything else as holy??

.

253

Don’t hold your breath on that one, sport.

254

I’m not sure what you meant by that. My comment about withholding a transfusion being equivalent to murder was specifically directed at a hypothetical parent refusing to allow a transfusion of the parent’s own blood (since the point was that a legal right to control one’s own body under any circumstance does not translate to a moral right to do the same). Annie-Xmas seemed to think that I was somehow letting Witnesses off the hook, since they also deny their children needed blood transfusions, though for very different reasons. I don’t expect Witnesses to ask for my opinion on the matter, and so I see no reason to give it. I don’t usually spout off about abortion without being invited too, either.

FTR, I think Witnesses have a morally defensible stance, but I think the principles and beliefs upon which they base their stance are mistaken. I think there is a clear interest in society protecting children from parents who make poor decisions that threaten their children’s lives (cf. the case of a vegan couple who allowed their infant to starve to death rather than give it milk), but I believe there is a balancing interest in protecting freedom of religion. I would place the child’s welfare first, but I would expect any legislation on the point to be very carefully drafted to allow the bare minimum of restriction of freedom of religion.

(I don’t need a reason to give my opinion on a subject someone else brings up on a message board. That’s what message boards are for.)

255

Let’s suppose that humans reproduced in a different way. Instead of sperm and egg each providing half of the genetic material to make a human, sperm contained all the genetic material and the ovum only provided nutrition. Would that then render all forms of contraception immoral?

I fail to see how genetic individuation makes the crucial difference here. Whether it’s contraception, abstinence, or abortion, you are still preventing a possible person from having a future.

A zygote naturally may turn into an embryo, and an embryo might turn into a fetus if everything were left to run its “natural” course. But I don’t accept as a given that we have to let nature run its course, least of all not when the rights of a potential (or disputed) person clash with those of an undisputed actual person. The rights of the one who is unambigously a person (the woman) has to take precedence here.

It’s a function of previously expressed will being carried on into the future.

If a dying man, as his last action, added to his Will and Testament that he wanted to be cremated and not buried, we respect his wish, even if his friends and family unanimously opposed it and would be the only ones who are in a position to currently care. He could refuse to be an organ donor, even though he obviously won’t miss any organs once he’s dead and others might desperately need them. Why? Because previously arisen conciousness matters. :wink:

Going back to the hypothermia victim example, I think we can assume, as a function of his previously expressed will, that he would have wished to be revived if that were at all possible. If he felt strongly otherwise, he could have put in a Do Not Resuscitate order.

I take it as a moral axiom that somebody has to have an identifiable past in order to have a morally relevant interest in having a future. We may have have arrived at an impasse in this debate since we don’t accept each others moral axioms.

256

We’re running a bit in circles though. What makes her an “unambiguous” person? Not sure I’m following your hypothetical, but “genetic material” is NOT the same as a distinct human entity, one with a singular unity of identity that will progress from conception, through a pregnancy, childhood, adulthood–to death. I’m flatly saying, and don’t know how else to say it, that I see no obligation to make sure we create as many of these human entities as we can, only that we respect those already in existence. I am arguing that we are all human beings, and as such, have the right to live, and that right, while not inviolable, is as fundamental a right as there is. Stated differently, the right of an innocent to live is the most fundamental right; no other right exists without it.

Now, if you want to argue that the distinct human entity, not yet born, is not deserving of rights because of his current mental state–say, a lack of consciousness–then I’d offer my hypothermia victim. He shares that attribute. I’d speculate that most people (not that a vote makes it right) would assign rights to that temporary flatliner, his mental state at the moment notwithstanding.

The you see it more as custom? Am I understanding you to say that after death, or when brain activity is interrupted, there is no right, though we may operate as if there were, out of respect perhaps?

But this axiom seems to serve no purpose but to arbitrarily qualify the need for a certain mental capacity to be considered a person, so that abortions can be permitted, but our flatliner would still have rights. If I understand you, your axioms say, “a certain mental state is a prerequisite for personhood, except when it’s not, just because.” (In the way that all axioms, mine included, at some point become, “just because.”) You’re right, we may be at an impasse.

257

Your moral axiom of declaring an embryo a person with rights seems like it’s arbitrarily rigged so abortions should be illegal.

I have a very hard time believing that if you were somehow forced to choose between saving a grown woman and saving five embryos you would save the embryos and not the woman. But it seems that your belief system would require it. I doubt even 1 in 10 “life begins at conception” pro-lifers would do so if they were put to the test. But the chance that some mad scientist would rig a Saw-style choose or the other trap is slim, so they don’t have to deal with the cognitive dissonance.

258

I don’t see the arbitrary nature of my axiom, certainly not in the sense that I infer it from your position. I believe all innocent human beings have the right to live. That includes the unborn, but it is not qualified in some way to rig allowing abortions. I feel the same way about the lives of toddlers and adults.

I also believe that a pregnant woman’s life is certainly no less important. If such a circumstance exists where her life can be saved with an indirect result of killing the unborn child, that could well be the most moral decision possible.

259

Although I doubt I’ll ever get you to come to my side on the abortion issue, I admit that I felt a bit of a sting from the accusation that my morals are nothing more than mere ex post facto justifications for my desire for abortion to remain legal. So if nothing else, I’ll try in this post to convince you to concede there’s more to my system of morality than just that.

You point out that a zygote has a unique DNA code and you say that this alone is enough to identify an individual with morally relevant interests.

But my moral intuition tells me there’s more to being a person than having a particular DNA strand. DNA may be a neccesary condition to creating a person (at least until we create a robot that passes the Turing Test), but it is not the sine qua non of personhood.

Let’s say you have a friend, “John”. I ask you to describe to me who John is. You’d probably tell me about his personality, his hobbies, his hopes and goals and aspirations. All of these things form the core of who John is. Without which, you would not have John. If he were to get into a horrible car accident and wind up in a persistant vegetative state, I posit that John is no longer with us, even if the body that once housed his mind is still functioning. His psychological identity is what makes him fundamentally him, not his biological identity.

If no psychological identity has yet formed, I say that there is nothing to grieve over. This is why it’s virtually unheard of to have a funeral over a miscarriage. Just as you don’t grieve over all the possible sperm/egg combos that didn’t happen, I take things a step further and don’t grieve for the embryos and fetuses that never grew up.

You may try to counter this argument by saying it permits infanticide. After all, an infant hasn’t really formed an indentifiable personality either. My world view actually would permit infanticide as long as it was done in a humane and painless manner. The severely developmentally disabled and those with severe dementia may also fail to qualify as persons in my analysis. I realize that I am in the minority in holding to these views, but I hope that by airing them I’ll be able to avoid the accusation that I’m just cherry picking my views soley because I want to allow abortion.

It may comfort you to know that I won’t go lobbying to legalize infanticide or the mercy killing of Alzheimers patients because from a pragmatic standpoint the effort would be extremely unlikely to succeed.

260

I have wondered about those “which one to save scenarios”. Say you have a flask with frozen embryos in liquid nitrogen containing 100 or so in an IVF clinic. Say there is a fire and one person is trapped in the room where the flask is located. A pro-life person enters the room and has just a split second to save the person or grab the flask with 100 “babies” which does he do? I think most would save the person and let the flask burn. What would the pro-life people in this thread do? Person or Flask?