Yep, I understand. But that goes back to my earlier point. You seem to be defining the entity by his circumstance, not by his “essence” (for lack of a better word). He is defined by the rights you assign him, rather than assigning him rights because of his definition.
To clarify: a lone person on a desert island is still, well, a person, right? Despite having no interaction with “society”? If you say, no, he is not, you’ll be consistent. It will just seem like an odd way to force a meaning onto “person.”
Please jog my memory further–why is the fact that an unborn baby is not seen make him a non-member of society. [Hyperbolic analogy alert] If the baby were delivered with everyone present blindfolded, then left in a locked room, alone, is he yet a member of society? Why is the barrier of a few layers of skin substantially different than that? [/haa]
But good Catholics are supposed to be entering into the sacrament of marriage with an acceptance of whatever kids come about through their union. This is some serious shit, and to make that commitment means living up to those promises.
As long as we’re talking opinions, abortion is always murder, even in the case of rape, incest, or risk to the mom.
I’d disagree - babies immediately start interacting with those around, I’ve been at births, I’ve seen it happening (not that that kind of evidence counts for much, but I’m pretty sure a cite can be dug up.)
I recall anecdotal evidence, but am having trouble recalling cites. But yes, I do remember - but see below
I’d put it to you that there is a distinct difference between the neediness of the unborn and that of the birthed (even premmies).
Well, at the moment, I’m not convinced that the limited interaction and influence of the unborn fits my idea of a societal actor. The influence is limited - we are as entitled to assign a role of “Societal Actor” to a virus infection that makes someone grouchy, as we are to a moving foetus that makes its parent happy. There’s a lack of purpose in the action, that distinguishes it from even a new-born baby’s questing after the nipple (Again, anecdotal, but I’ve seen this happen 2 minutes after birth). The foetus responds to stimulus, and I’ve said I wouldn’t again deny that there’s interaction there. I’m still againnst ascribing purpose to it, though.
I’m not saying anything magical happens to the foetus in-and-of itself when it’s born. But all living things are the sum of their physicality and their circumstances, IMO, and that’s just changed dramatically and instantaneously for the now-baby.
Not sure what you mean here - I see a “person” as the sum of “essence” and circumstances. Whatebver “essense” is.
My idea of “personhood” is emergent behaviour. It only becomes relevant in context. The lone human on a desert island is a “person” in as much as you can have a “Society” of one, but essentially, his “personhood” is meaningless to anyone else, so in a sense, he is not a “person” as “Societal Actor”, no. But it’s a meaningless hypothetical, only a semantic niggle, because any situation where his personhood comes up for consideration must necessarily involve other “Societal Actors”, AFAICT.
Unless you can come up with a hypothetical where it doesn’t?
It’s not the not seen(or sensed). It’s the lack of meaningful interaction. I’d say locking a baby in a room (to starve, I assume) counts as a very meaningful interaction indeed.
The fact that there’s any debate at all convinced me long ago that the issue should be left up to the individual woman and those she trusts enough to ask for advice, if any. My wife has said she doubts she could ever have her own pregnancy aborted, but she is outraged that any woman or girl could be coerced into giving birth unwillingly. We all have to live with our own decisions, and I think recent threads on this very board have illustrated very well that morality isn’t universal.
I gotta’ say, as convinced as I am, there is an area that bothers me, and that’s when a pregnant woman is injured by someone else’s actions and loses the fetus. It appears to me (and this may just be an emotional response, I don’t know) that the loss of one’s prospective baby is a helluvalot bigger a loss than, say, the loss of a kidney or even a limb. On the other hand, a law that automatically makes that murder does, in fact, define a fetus as a baby from the moment of conception, which I simply do not accept, based on the scientific evidence I’ve read about. Certainly, the pregnant woman and her mate could press a civil suit, but is this really enough?
So I guess I recognize that even in my perfect little world, there’s no perfect answer.
So even in a committed relationship, or if I were married, you would actually consider permanent abstinance to be a realistic expectation?
You really see nothing wrong with the idea that someone who does not want children should just give up on the idea of ever having a normal, healthy marriage?
That sounds like a good idea, but there aren’t enough people who want to adopt to provide homes for all of them.
The OP noted that there were 1.29 million abortions in the US in 2002. This site says:
That’s a substantial difference-- the “supply” greatly exceeds the “demand”. What to do with all of the excess babies? Right now, it’s relatively easy to find a couple willing to adopt a healthy white baby, but what about all of the black babies or babies with health problems? Bring back orphanages? Further burden the already glutted foster-care system?
If someone simply “does not want” children, then my recommendation is to load up on redundant birth control methods to reduce the likelihood of pregnancy to practically nil. But if even this miniscule risk of pregnancy is still unacceptable, then abstinence is your best bet, yes.
You’re correct that in the pro-life mindset, there is no way to have both a healthy sex life and absolutely zero risk of pregnancy resulting from it. It’s up to each person to decide what’s a higher priority and make their choices accordingly.
To summarize, all posters are happy to let Sarahfeena choose as she wishes in the hypothetical example, but Sarahfeena and wm– are not willing to let catsix choose as she wishes. That’s the debate in a nutshell, in my opinion.
After the baby is born and the umbilical cord is cut.
Prior to that, there might be highly specific situations where I, personally, would consider a specific abortion to be grossly immoral (but not murder), as well as some highly specific variations where I would not.
I know a woman who as a teenager was frog-marched by her mom to the local clinic and browbeaten by mom into getting an abortion that she did not want. That’s clearly wrong, awful, and evil, but the victim is not the embryo or fetus. Any cases where abortion is performed on a fully non-voluntary basis are even worse examples.*
I know of women whose battering husbands deliberately beat them in such a way as to provoke a miscarriage. Again: sinful, horrible, and criminal, but the victim is not the embryo or fetus. The well-publicized California murderer who killed his wife and thereby the unborn child she was carrying would fall into this category. (Of course, cases like these would not be considered therapeutic abortion, but I’m mentioning them anyhow)
I knew a woman who broke up with her husband; they had been trying to conceive and she was indeed pregnant when they had a major meltdown fight. Honestly, it was my personal impression that she had an abortion for the specific purpose of hurting him. Not that I’m a mind-reader or anything… only she knows her true motivation. If, in fact, she aborted just to make him feel awful (he had feelings about abortion that were more or less in alignment with right to life folks, she did not), I think that’s pretty shitty. (The victim, again, being someone other than the fetus or embryo). But since there’s no way of knowing — she might have found the notion of bearing his kid emotionally intolerable after the breakup — it’s her decision to make and no one else’s to second-guess.
In a similar vein, I knew a rather selfish rich girl who held the threat of getting an abortion over her family’s head when they weren’t forthcoming with financial support she thought she was due. Once again, had she actually gone through with it, and for those reasons, I find that morally offensive.
The authority to decide to abort rather than continue to bear is a power, and, like any power, it can be abused.
If the political planners at NARAL and NOW and Planned Parenthood had more than a neuron apiece, they would have contested parental approval laws by supporting the right of a minor pregnant girl to decline an abortion that her parents or guardians wanted her to have (and if parents & guardians don’t have the right to override a minor girl’s desire to not have an abortion, arguments that depend on parental authority to override her right to have one end up looking flimsy and indefensible).
Actually, Sarah, Voyager is correct with respect to my position. I believe abortion is a grave moral wrong and a great harm to society, to the extent that it should not be legal for anyone.
“Serious shit” is an understatement. If a couple’s circumstances change and they can no longer afford children, physically endure a pregnancy, or any number of changes that human beings go through every day, they’re also no longer allowed to make love. Serious as a heart attack, about covers it.
Morality aside, I don’t understand where the “harm to society” aspects come into play. How is society harmed by not having millions of unwanted children? In a small sense, isn’t society benefitted by not having to provide welfare to support the unwanted children of poor mothers?
I personally do not believe in abortion. As wm– says, I believe it is a great moral wrong, and I also believe it causes great harm to society. But I have never said that I believe in 100% restriction of abortion. My main reason for this is, due to the contentiousness of the issue, I believe outlawing it would probably do more harm than good.
However, legislation is one thing, and helping people make choices other than abortion is another. I will never tire of trying to change hearts and minds in regards to this issue.
