Ahhh, abortion

Great Debates
81

Beagle,

If you aren’t seeking to have power over me as a Christian, then I haven’t lumped you in any category, obviously, but you can still insist. By the way, I could have used the word “dogmatic human” instead, as in “dogmatic humans don’t have that right to power,” but I like the word Christian better, it’s more clear, and since the disseparation of church and state is a threat to free government anytime, that means that anytime they seek a right-to-power, even if it is only two Christians seeking power over me, they don’t deserve it, and they are a threat. (By the way, a technical quibble, you assumed I was talking about Christianity, not Christians.). Which century do I live in? Hmm, what century was your pro-monarchy bible written in? That’s a ironic question, actually.

Jubilation,

I’m seriously doubting my ability to communicate with you. The government is not planning to fail people on abortion, unless they outlaw it, obviously. The government is supposed to enforce personal rights, never deny them without substitute action (in this case welfare) merely for the sake of outdated supernaturalism.

Also, you argue something called right-to-life as if it really exists. There is no such thing, it is only in your imagination, which you must enforce to make it real. By the way, the right-to-life stand is not invalid for merely being selectively right to life, that’s just a criticism, it is invalid for making a top-down supply-side case for something that is not a supply-side problem, because it is a demand-side problem (a parental demand). The day the government forces people to abort is the day that banning them from doing so makes sense with a pro-life argument.

And, Jubiliation, be careful, Beagle is issuing “cites” for fallacies (it’s about time someone started doing it, I’ve let them slide by the hundreds). JTCP, you might get one for using an appeal-to-pity argument, one for a false analogy, and maybe just a warning on the ambiguity after the fact. It’s okay to use fallacies informally, of course, just don’t go changing any laws with them. Thanks.

82

**'Twas brillig, and the slithy toves…my head hurts just from reading this paragraph.

Dave, give up. Walk away.

And Jubilation should take this personally, why?

83

Bob,

You asked a loaded question, which is also invalid because you are asking for him, but the answer to him is no, of course not, it was about me and having to re-explain my quotes. The debate took a nose dive when it focused on me (again).

84

satan, in response to my comment, “the majority in this country could feasibly elect officials that could overturn current abortion laws,” you said:

so you’re saying the law can’t be overturned (read my comment again that you’re responding to)?

then you said

and now you’re saying the law can be overturned.

again, you missed my point by around the same five miles. first of all, i didn’t say that the majority wants abortion so it should be so. i said “if the majority in this country wanted to ban abortion then it would make sense for abortion to be banned”. it would make sense in the conscript of a society where it’s feasible for a majority to elect officials that could turn over a current law, that if the majority of people wanted abortion banned, it got banned. not necessarily because a poll showed it, but because they elected officials that shared their cause. you said “until we have a court which says those laws are not unconstitutional” that it’s just a big assumption. that’s correct. and my point, which you are completely missing, is that if pro-lifers want to change abortion laws, they’ll need to come up with better arguments than ‘fetus is human’ to change enough minds to elect officials willing to fill the supreme court with their allies.

85

When was the last time you voted for someone running for a position on the Supreme Court?

86

my understanding is that supreme court nominees are chosen by the president and confirmed by congress. if that’s the case, pro-lifers can vote for presidential candidates who would tend to nominate pro-life justices. i’m not sure if confirmation can be based on philosophical ideology, so i don’t know what the effect would be of electing pro-life congressmen, other than having another pro-life politician in the political spotlight who could have a reasonable chance at the presidency. the more pro-lifers you have voting for those candidates, the more likely they are to consistently get elected and, when the opportunity arises, nominate pro-life justices.

87

ok, i think i see where the confusion is. my fault.

you are correct, satan. the officials cannot themselves overturn the laws. i should have been more specific about what elected officials could do to move in the direction of overturning the laws.

88

IMHO, abortion should be legal. It is up to the woman to decide what is right and what is wrong, and she should be given the option to choose for herself. She should also be given balanced information on what opportunities are available to her, depending on which way she goes. However, she should be required by law to make her decision within three months of falling pregnant - the abortion should only be performed on a fetus incapable of living outside the womb except in extreme cases of medical emergency. Additionally, everyone should be given one chance at making a mistake, but no more. Each woman should be given the option of having one abortion, but no more (again, except in special circumstances, like rape/incest). Abortion is a last resort, not a method of birth control. Hearing of a woman who has had an abortion provokes no real reaction from me, but hearing of a woman who has had 3 or 4, like some I know of, sickens me. You would think they would learn to be more responsible after the first time.
Abortion is always going to be a touchy issue, but I don’t believe in the pro-life cause. I believe in pro-choice.
A worst case example is a woman here in Australia who fell pregnant. As a Catholic, she was not prepared to abort the baby, but her parents put a lot of pressure on her to give the baby up for adoption. She became depressed, and mentally ill, and just days before the adoption was finalised she kidnapped the little boy from his foster parents and killed him. Not many people are going to resort to this kind of action, but forcing people to go through with an unwanted pregnancy and then giving the baby away has consequences of its own. Yes, the answer is to be responsible in the first place, but accidents do happen. Still, one accident should be enough to make people more careful in future, and abortions should only be permitted to be performed once per person.

89

for those that believe the fetus has a right to life, what this woman did is no worse than killing the boy in utero.

90

Zwald,

Very close to a slippery slope fallacy, which by extension could be stretched to mean that killing a fly is the same a killing a person (I’ve heard that very argument from vegans).

Cazzle,

Under your idea, if we’re going to allow at least one abortion, we should at least allow one per person, one for each male involved too. Abortion is not just for women, alot of men like the idea since they have no idea when a women is fertile and don’t want a family.

In general,

Nobody brought up the oddity that many right-to-lifers INSIST that children be raised in a two-parent family. This does not square easily with anti-abortion, for obvious reasons. It not only seems strange to lobby to deny women education about conception, deny birth-control procedures and services, deny abortion services, deny welfare to raise an unwanted kid, but to also insist that she marry whoever conceived her child, rapist or otherwise. Maybe he already is married. Just a thought.

91

If it is decided that a fetus is a human being, and that abortion is therefore murder, where is the line drawn for a miscarriage? Any woman who has to suffer through one, by definition, should have to be arrested and jailed while a complete criminal investigation is performed to find if it was natural, or if she had a drink or something that may have contributed, deliberately or not, and then be tried accordingly for negligent homicide, or involuntary manslaughter. I’ve asked this question before in gatherings of Pro-Lifers, and the common response is, “that’s different than abortion”, and nobody ever discusses it further. A death is a death, a law is a law. If abortion is made illegal, then all other situations will have to be monitored as well… otherwise, it’s just lip service.

Another hangup I have is when people say “adoption is the alternative”. IMHO, the only people who have ANY right at all to say that, are those who are currently in process of adoption attempts. If you do not have paperwork in to adopt a child, or have not adopted a child, then you have no right to put the responsibility of adoption on someone else. If there are SO many people desperate to adopt a child, as I’m always told, then how can there possibly be any orphanages in existence, much less so many overcrowded ones?

92

What I asked for in a previous message, and what I still have not received from the pro-lifers here :

What is your definition of life? What is your objective evidence that a fetus is a human being? What society in the history of mankind has charged those responsible for the death of a fetus with murder? What is your moral and legal ability to actually firmly state that life starts at any time before childbirth?

I’m just curious.

93

TurboDog, and a giant double handful of other people making the same leap:

Killing*murder.

94

Odd. That was a “doesn’t equals” sign, not an asterisk.

95
  1. definition of life: As Cecil points out, there are a few possibilities http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a971212.html

a) Living things contain reproducible hereditary information. (zygote/embryo/fetus qualifies, I trust you’ll agree)

b) Life reverses local entropy. (zygote/embryo/fetus qualifies, I trust you’ll agree)

c) Life is an arbitrary definition that nobody could nail down.

  1. Objective evidence that a fetus is a human being: (Although note that terminology is often a problem in this aspect of the debate…for some the term “human being” is the same as person, for others the term is the same as “human life”…for others the term “human being” is a philosophical term that can’t be defined objectively)

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

  1. I’m not sure what your point is about past societies and anti abortion legislation. (Unless you mean, that if past societies have not prohibited something, then present societies should not either)… I’m not aware of the exact legislation of all societies (for example, whether the exact word “murder” was used as part of the law) however, I found a brief summary of U.S. abortion related laws here http://www.foxnews.com/fn99/national/abortion/timeline_laws.sml
  2. Life starting before childbirth: Well see #1, but also you may wish to check notes with fellow pro choicer MR2001 who told me http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=57084&pagenumber=2

“Then it’s a straw man, at best. No one disagrees that an embryo is alive and human.”

96

As I said before, the pro life crowd never seems to want to answer my question… and also seem to have trouble reading… I made no leap whatsoever… Note the word IF in the beginning of my sentence… IF it is decided that it IS.

97

i thought slippery slope was more like ‘if we legalize killing fetuses, the next thing we’ll legalize is killing 1 year olds’. i don’t think it’s slippery slope to equate the morality of killing two different people separated only by age. i’m not pro-life, so any pro-lifers feel free to correct me if i’m misrepresenting.

98

Zwaldd,

That’s the way I see it too, but a SS fallacy includes a special misuse of the If-then operator (in logic notation, not necessarily English):

http://www.intrepidsoftware.com/fallacy/ss.htm

So, this can include statements such as: If we kill a fly, then it is the same as killing a toad, and if we kill a toad…then a cow…then a baby.

Here is an example from a book I have that lists alot of examples (scant online examples):

Inviting a Communist speaker is essentially the same as being a Communist sympathizer. And being a Communist sympathizer is essentially the same as being a Communist. So, inviting a Communist speaker is essentially the same as being a Communist. (p. 40)

Or,

Having one grain of sugar in your hot chocolate is essentially the same as having none. Having two grains of sugar is essentially the same as having one…So, having a cup of sugar in your hot chocolate is essentially the same as having none. (p. 40)

Equating is the key, not necessarily prognostication of the future, although that applies as well (if-then operator).

Source: Introduction to Logic by Dennis J. Packard and James E. Faulconer (D. Van Nostrand: New York, 1980).

99

Since miscarriages are unintentional, there is no line to draw.

By saying this, of course, I am excluding deliberately inflicted miscarriages (e.g. by pummeling the woman’s abdomen), which are essentially a non-conventional form of abortion.

100

Jubilation,
That is exactly my point. Until every instance is investigated, it is unknown what was intentional or not. Not every adult killing is intentional either, but that doesn’t mean it’s not criminal. A man who has a couple of drinks at a bar and kills a person on a bicycle with his car can be and usually is convicted of manslaughter. If a woman has a couple of drinks and miscarries guilty of the same? Both knew that the identical risk was there, whether the result was intentional or not.