Another abortion debate

Great Debates
181

[QUOTE=erie774]
But the “abuse” took place before they were removed from the uterus. The “crime” was committed on the victim before they were born. This is different from the mother giving her newborn baby some drugs. The drugs are being provided in utero. No, they are not performing c-sections and ripping the baby out to protect it. But upon birth, tests are performed to see if the child had been previously abused. If so, the child is taken into custody. This shows that the entity while in utero is being afforded the right of protection from abuse.

I agree that there are matters of equivalency involved here. I believe, though, that it is better to provide the rights of protection to an unwilling victim incapable of self-defense than an active abuser. When comatose patients have been abused by their care-givers, the abuser is punished. I know, “The patient had been born already and so has rights.” But if the law states that abuse can occur before birth, then the unborn is afforded some legal standing for protection.

How far the protection can be extrapolated is debatable. This could be used by either side of the debate to set clear deadlines (so to speak) on when we can begin affording rights to the unborn that outweigh the rights of bodily autonomy of the mother. Could it even be extended to smoking and nutrition? Exposure to hazardous materials? Women have successfully sued companies for exposure to toxic materials that resulted in birth defects. Could women be held accountable for continuing to work around toxic substances while pregnant? If a pregnant woman develops gestational diabetes but doesn’t follow the recommended medical protocol, is she intentionally harming the fetus? Could a child with birth defects sue his mother for pre-natal harm?
[/QUOTE]

Right, and I’d make the case that these laws are unconstitutional. Why?

There it is: born or naturalized. The state has no constitutional right to infringe on the rights of its citizen (the mother) to protect the non-existant rights of a being who’s not a citizen because it hasn’t been born yet.

You started this thread supposedly asking about a legal term: murder. You obviously don’t want a legal debate, or a clean debate, or anything else to asked for in the OP. You’ve used tactics which are emotionally manipulative, cherry-picked and changed your defintions to suit your whims without the agreement of your fellow debaters, introduced straw men and ad hominem attacks, attempted to trap people into saying things they didn’t intend, and misrepresented your purpose in this debate. Those are signs of a lousy debater, a dishonest person and a snake.

I am done with you, sir.

Sarahfeena, wm–, as always, I respect your logical consistency and moral integrity, while I may not agree with your conclusions. My Doper hat is once again off to you with respect.

182

[QUOTE=AHunter3]
whether you have evil intentions or not, the social movement in which you are a participant is attempting to do a great evil, and my opposition to it is a moral cause.
[/QUOTE]

So… either I’m evil outright, or I’m an unwitting pawn in a conspiracy to do evil. Not a very attractive choice.

[QUOTE=AHunter3]
I ask that you acknowledge that not every pro-choice partisan is arguing for an amoral right to unimpeded convenience.
[/QUOTE]

I don’t think I’ve implied anything of the kind. You’re conflating me into your vision of some larger pro-life/anti-woman movement instead of responding to what I actually say, and I wish you’d stop.

183

[QUOTE=wm–]
So… either I’m evil outright, or I’m an unwitting pawn in a conspiracy to do evil. Not a very attractive choice.
[/QUOTE]
With the greatest respect, that is often the “choice” we pro-choicers have in the eyes of pro-lifers.

184

[QUOTE=MrDibble]
Crap, are we looking at another 9-pager? Why start new threads, maybe we should just petition for an “Abortion Debate Sticky” in GD?
[/QUOTE]
I was thinking the same thing! I was also thinking of pitting myself for letting myself get sucked into another one so soon, which I swore I would not do.

:smack:

185

[QUOTE=Revenant Threshold]
Diogenes, come on, i’m pro-choice (and i’ve argued this issue with some of the pro-lifers in this thread) but the fact remains that from their point of view a fetus is a human life. Just saying “But it isn’t!” in increasinly petulant tones isn’t debating; it’s standing on the sidelines yelling.
[/QUOTE]

The difference is that Dio, and I think all pro-choicers, are willing for anyone who wishes to act personally as if the fetus was a person to do so. There is no conceivable way of proving whether a fetus is a person or not, and, as John said, no way of discovering the moment the fetus becomes a person. I’d modify that to say that viability outside the womb would count, but no time before that.

Given this lack of proof, personal choice should rule. That a collection of little old ladies decide that their dogs are people, and start a pressure group to ban doggie deaths at pounds, doesn’t make the dogs people. (And before you get outraged, the point is that this is a stupid idea.)

186

[QUOTE=Voyager]
The difference is that Dio, and I think all pro-choicers, are willing for anyone who wishes to act personally as if the fetus was a person to do so. There is no conceivable way of proving whether a fetus is a person or not, and, as John said, no way of discovering the moment the fetus becomes a person. I’d modify that to say that viability outside the womb would count, but no time before that.

Given this lack of proof, personal choice should rule. That a collection of little old ladies decide that their dogs are people, and start a pressure group to ban doggie deaths at pounds, doesn’t make the dogs people. (And before you get outraged, the point is that this is a stupid idea.)
[/QUOTE]
The problem with that is what constitutes proof. Many pro-lifers who hold that view starting from a religious position would consider their holy book/edicts handed down from a religious leader to* be* proof, since they emanate (theoretically) from their deity of choice.

Another thing to consider is what’s at risk; if we accept the pro-choice position as correct, then the biggest problem to avoid is the lack of choice of the woman concerned. If we assume the pro-life position’s right, then the worst scenario is a life being terminated, which for them is the biggest sin. I’m sure there are many pro-lifers who would say “Perhaps we can’t be sure; but isn’t it better to err on the side of protecting life?”.

187

[QUOTE=Sarahfeena]

.
Me too! (The safe & rare parts!) I personally feel it is a better use of my time & resources to help women who need it, not to work for legislation.
[/QUOTE]

The problem is that abortion will not likely to be safe if it is not legal. I agree with you on the rare part, as do most pro-choicers, I’m sure.

Could I characterize your position as anti-abortion, pro-choice? I think that is a very ethically supportable position to have.

188

[QUOTE=Voyager]
The difference is that Dio, and I think all pro-choicers, are willing for anyone who wishes to act personally as if the fetus was a person to do so.
[/QUOTE]

But if the fetus is a person, then the proper thing to do is to pass a law to protect its life. You can’t just say, well if you think killing a fetus is murder, then don’t kill any fetuses. That brings us right back to why any murder is considered a crime.

189

[QUOTE=John Mace]
But if the fetus is a person, then the proper thing to do is to pass a law to protect its life. You can’t just say, well if you think killing a fetus is murder, then don’t kill any fetuses. That brings us right back to why any murder is considered a crime.
[/QUOTE]

First they have to prove it’s a person. Then they can give it rights.

190

[QUOTE=wm–]
So… either I’m evil outright, or I’m an unwitting pawn in a conspiracy to do evil. Not a very attractive choice.
[/QUOTE]

There’s another choice. You can reach out to those of us who are pro-choice and work towards a mutually acceptable resolution of our impasse.

I’ve told you what’s important to me. You will note that it does not revolve around ending the life of embryos and fetuses. While I was not elected spokesperson for the pro-choice community or anything, I think my priorities are not unusual among prochoicers: that women should be sexually autonomous, that women should be pregnant only when they wish to be (and decisively not non-pregnant only as a consequence of being non-sexual).

If you had compelling reason to believe that it would dramatically reduce the abortion rate, would you join with pro-choice folk to improve sex education, to make contraceptive technology and information ubiquitous, and to change popular attitudes so that young women are comforatable with and socially applauded for being infertile by default?

If I told you that many of us would be more tolerant of some restrictions on abortion if (but only if, and when) nonvolitional pregnancies are virtually eliminated, would that lead to you put your energies towards that as your first goal? (Keeping in mind that even without more restrictions in place, reducing nonvolitional pregnancies in and of itself would greatly reduce abortion rates)?

I am willing to compromise: if I see pro-life people doing pro-reproductive-freedom things that reduce the rate of nonvolitional pregnancies (without doing so via the imposition of chastity), I would respect that to the point of caring about your issue even though it isn’t my issue. I admit I would still want abortion to be available under some circumstances where pregnancy was originally volitional but the situation has gone awry, but I would not necessarily oppose all restrictions, given your level of discomfort with abortion. Suggest an appropriate restriction. (Life or health of the mother?)

How do you feel about “morning-after” pills, emergency contraception over the counter?

Do we have room for some common ground, ya think?

191

[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic]
First they have to prove it’s a person. Then they can give it rights.
[/QUOTE]

That’s easy enough. Just change the definition- the present one is pretty arbitrary anyway.

192

[QUOTE=erie774]

How far the protection can be extrapolated is debatable. This could be used by either side of the debate to set clear deadlines (so to speak) on when we can begin affording rights to the unborn that outweigh the rights of bodily autonomy of the mother. Could it even be extended to smoking and nutrition? Exposure to hazardous materials? Women have successfully sued companies for exposure to toxic materials that resulted in birth defects. Could women be held accountable for continuing to work around toxic substances while pregnant? If a pregnant woman develops gestational diabetes but doesn’t follow the recommended medical protocol, is she intentionally harming the fetus? Could a child with birth defects sue his mother for pre-natal harm?
[/QUOTE]

This is woman as incubator–where are her rights? She is not entitled to earn wages in her chosen field (if it involves toxic chemicals?) Who then supports this woman?

I firmly believe in giving people information, but what they do with it is their business. Morally, there isn’t much more you can do than that. You all do realize that you can’t legislate morality and that people act irrationally often? And to ask anyone to live a life without sex, to avoid the remote possiblity of pregnancy is messed up. What is being asked is that someone NOT live their life fully, to serve someone else’s moral agenda. That’s messed up.
I swore I’d never get sucked into another one of these “discussions”. I am most definetly pro-choice. But I also support strongly a solid sex ed program and the teaching of girls their options and the teaching of boys that sexual conquest is not the way to manhood. Yeah-it’s an uphill battle.

193

[QUOTE=Voyager]
The problem is that abortion will not likely to be safe if it is not legal. I agree with you on the rare part, as do most pro-choicers, I’m sure.

Could I characterize your position as anti-abortion, pro-choice? I think that is a very ethically supportable position to have.
[/QUOTE]
No, I don’t think so. For one thing, I don’t like the term “anti-abortion” as well as I like the term “pro-life,” as pro-life stands for an entire ethical world view that covers more than just abortion. And I would not characterize myself as pro-choice, either. I do not agree with abortion as an ethical means of ending a pregnancy. I think to term me “pro-choice” would imply that I think it is ok in certain circumstances. I have merely resigned myself to the idea that making abortion illegal is basically impossible.

194

[QUOTE=John Mace]
That’s easy enough. Just change the definition- the present one is pretty arbitrary anyway.
[/QUOTE]

Then can we alter the arbitrary legal definition of murder accordingly? You can have the moral victory of calling the fetus a person and abortion rights can be maintained. It’s win-win.

195

Murder and humanity are words, and nothing more. It’s the concepts they describe that matters, or rather, how the concepts are experienced.
Slowly changing concepts should have slowly changing definitions, there’s nothing magical about birth unless we think it is. As a fetus develops and gradually become “human” it probably becomes more and more capable of feeling pain, but that’s beside the point, really. There’s no way an unborn could be able of reflecting upon, and suffering from the thought of, it’s impending, sudden abortion. Whether it is a fetus, a human or something in between, and whether it is the subject of an abortion, an accident, a cold-hearted murder, or a nice, cozy one, it doesn’t know it and it never will.
It could, however, in time, learn a whole lot about how it’s unwanted, and how the family is uncapable of supporting it. The parents, too, have to live with this.
A spade is something you can dig with, whatever you call it, and calling abortion MURDER of HUMANS is a neat way of proving that you don’t have any real arguments against it.

196

[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic]
First they have to prove it’s a person. Then they can give it rights.
[/QUOTE]
Huh? Prove you’re a person.

197

[QUOTE=Stratocaster]
Huh? Prove you’re a person.
[/QUOTE]

That’s easy. I have a birth certificate and a social security number.

198

I must admit, when I look at the arguments that have been put forth by the pro-choice community over the years, the ones that don’t give me a good warm feeling about “the logical ammunition on our side” are the ones that take the form

• Abortion should remain legal because it’s legal which makes it right.

• Abortion is not the killing of a person because a fetus is not a person, it says so in the law, end of story.

• Abortion is not murder because the law defines murder as the killing of a person, and no one is a person until they are born, it says so right here in the law, so there.
Those all strike me as defensive arguments. (I don’t know why I should so readily assume that most of us pro-choicers do not automatically believe that whatever The Establishment and Its Laws have deemed to be right is right and whatever it has deemed to be wrong is wrong…but I do. We are not otherwise enthralled with Authority).

C’mon. They are wrong. We need not hide behind what is legal, we have the moral authority, and if we continue to shrink away from discussions (or even apparently pointless arguments) revolving around what is right and moral, we’re going to continue to lose ground.

199

[QUOTE=Bryan Ekers]
Then can we alter the arbitrary legal definition of murder accordingly? You can have the moral victory of calling the fetus a person and abortion rights can be maintained. It’s win-win.
[/QUOTE]

I don’t know if that was a serious post that you expected me to respond to, or just a joke. I’m not advocating that we do change the definition of a person, just pointing out that the current one isn’t religion dependent and it’s not the only definition that makes sense scientifically. The definition of murder, OTOH, isn’t an arbitrary thing and if we changed its defintion we’d need to invent a new word to convey the older meaning.

200

[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic]
That’s easy. I have a birth certificate and a social security number.
[/QUOTE]

Ergo, anyone who does not have a birth certificate and a Social Security number is a legitimate target to be killed. Correct?

Regards,
Shodan