Another abortion debate

Great Debates
101

[QUOTE=Hentor the Barbarian]
Perhaps not, but when the other side is yelling “Ya huh!” it can be hard to resist. And Sarahfeena’s repeated assertion about the equivalence of abortion, slavery and spousal abuse is essentially just yelling “ya huh!” If she were to understand that a pro-choice position would regard two of those examples as involving a person and the third not, she wouldn’t simply repeat it.
[/QUOTE]

Except that isn’t what is happening. Several of the pro-lifers are explicitly stating that they understand the assumptions being made by the other side, even if they don’t agree with them. **Diogenes **is just dismissing the other side’s assumptions, or pretending they don’t exist.

102

[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic]
I see the problem as just the opposite. Nobody is trying to force pro-lifers to make decisions based on the premise (a default presumption really, rather than a premise which has to be proven) that a fetus is not a person. The other side is trying to make it ILLEGAL for other people not to accept their unproven and unprovable assertion to the contrary. That’s a huge difference. I’m not trying to put anyone in prison for their philosophical decisions.
[/QUOTE]
But from their point of view, you ARE trying to keep it legal for humans to be killed. Now, we may not agree with the basic premise behind that, but we’re still trying to make our beliefs law; the only difference is the amount of support/evidence for those basic premises (and no, I don’t mean “we have all the evidence, they have none”; my pro-choice position is based on utilitarianism, and as such there really isn’t any relevant scientific OR religious evidence).

103

[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic]
I see the problem as just the opposite. Nobody is trying to force pro-lifers to make decisions based on the premise (a default presumption really, rather than a premise which has to be proven) that a fetus is not a person. The other side is trying to make it ILLEGAL for other people not to accept their unproven and unprovable assertion to the contrary. That’s a huge difference. I’m not trying to put anyone in prison for their philosophical decisions.
[/QUOTE]

And yet we put people in prison for killing other people. Why? Because we made the philosophical decision that murder is wrong and should be illegal.

104

[QUOTE=Hentor the Barbarian]
Perhaps not, but when the other side is yelling “Ya huh!” it can be hard to resist. And Sarahfeena’s repeated assertion about the equivalence of abortion, slavery and spousal abuse is essentially just yelling “ya huh!” If she were to understand that a pro-choice position would regard two of those examples as involving a person and the third not, she wouldn’t simply repeat it.
[/QUOTE]
I would be more than willing to give a better argument, but I was trying to make a point by copying Diogenes’ posting style. He made his unqualified statement, so I made mine. Sure advanced the debate, didn’t it? The irony of it is that my entire point in the first place was to show the pro-life side, and illustrate why “if you are against abortion, then don’t have one” doesn’t quite cut it. He doesn’t have to believe the premise in order to understand the point I was trying to make…all he has to do is accept that some people DO believe the premise, in order to try to understand the other sides’ POV. Apparently, he is not interested in trying to do that.

All I said was that I would love it if there was never another abortion performed. But, I acknowledge that with such vastly different POVs on the subject, it is an impossibility to demand it. You can respect that opinion, or not, but that is it in a nutshell.

105

[QUOTE=Hentor the Barbarian]
Also, I was going to write a post expressing the respect I had for Sarahfeena’s pro-choice position; that although she may feel abortion is murder, it isn’t her call to make in regards to others. However, in her exchanges since expressing that belief, she seems to be sidling up to the “it should be illegal” point of view. So, I express my respect for you Sarahfeena, if you are of the mindset that it should not be illegal. I’m not sure how much value qualified respect has, but there you go.
[/QUOTE]

I agree with this. Sarahfeena, I do respect and appreciate the fact that you can resist the impulse to codify a deeply held moral conviction into the law for everybody else. Not everybody can do that (including some liberals).

106

[QUOTE=John Mace]
And yet we put people in prison for killing other people. Why? Because we made the philosophical decision that murder is wrong and should be illegal.
[/QUOTE]

I disagree that it’s a philospohical decision with regards to the law. It’s a practical and necessary decision to preserve the stability of human communities.

107

[QUOTE=wm–]
Society is harmed when human beings are murdered, period
[/QUOTE]

Society is harmed when the sexes are polarized against each other. Women get pregnant and men do not.

Anything which makes pregnancy difficult to avoid if you’re a sexually active female, anything which makes ending an unwanted pregnancy difficult or impossible, and anything which otherwise makes it more than just biologically awkward to be pregnant except under highly constrained circumstances …these things pervert the possibilities for mutually consensual sex and turn the domain of human sexuality into sex warfare.

I’m not speaking from some abstract theory about what “would” or “might” occur “if” such a situation came to exist, I’m speaking of historical fact. We’ve had that world, and it was an abomination in the eyes of God, a great and terrible evil.

We are fortunately in large part post-patriarchal nowadays, although what I describe isn’t exactly ancient history that remains extant nowhere on the face of the earth.

You who find abortion abhorrent and morally repellent because you think of it as the murdering of fetal people, kindly look up and check out your leadership. The right to life movement is heavily, if not universally, spearheaded by folks who would also take away access to contraceptives and birth control information, would make sex outside of marriage once again a punishable crime if they could, and are very open about the fact that what they explicitly WANT is a return to the old patriarchal double-standard society.

If you yourself find it irritating and frustrating as hell to have pro-choicers tell you that you are opposed to womens’ freedom, fine, I respect that, and I acknowledge that many pro-life folks on this board are indeed motivated solely by their visceral sense that killing is wrong and abortion is killing and they don’t seem to have any other iron in this fire. But don’t kid yourself: the folks at the front of the column in which you march want the restoration of the patriarchy and they aren’t even very subtle about it.

I am proud to consider myself aligned with the feminists. What they have done and sought to do, in the large swath, is good, and patriarchy is evil. So much so that, were it both practical and advantageous to round up, oh I dunno, a couple hundred thousand pro-patriarchy leaders and kill them in order to protect the spirit of sexual egalitarianism, I’d have no more moral problem with that than with killing Axis military forces in World War II. (It is not, in fact, remotely practical, and doing so would be completely incompatible with attaining the goals of feminism, if only because of how military authority has to work, but the point remains valid).

What we find morally necessary is that women be free to have sex at the time and place of their choosing, without reproductive consequences impinging upon that choice above and beyond the biologically inevitable.

My female kitty cat, more fully defined by the biologically inevitable than the human female in the era of modern contraception and surgical techniques, would, upon giving birth to kittens, check each one in turn, and would, for kitty-cat reasons of her own, occasionally nudge one to the side and not lick off its afterbirth-sac, and would not let it feed if it managed to come to her anyhow. Kitty cats don’t have laws that would interfere in such decisions. Humans are not kitty cats, of course. Human females (some of them) have said that they will avail themselves of means of terminating an unwanted pregnancy; other human females who have not done so have nevertheless agreed that they have the right to make that choice.

You believe that what you seek to do is moral and righteous. I believe that what you apparently seek to do (restrict or eliminate abortion rights) is massively immoral and sinful on a colossal scale, and I will do what I can and what I must to stop you and your colleagues from perpetrating such a monstrous evil.

108

[QUOTE=Sarahfeena]
They are perfectly valid comparisons. All three…abortion, slavery, and spousal abuse harm and violate the rights of other people.
[/QUOTE]

And this is precisely the crux of the debate. Most Americans do not believe abortion harms the rights of others, for there are no “others” to harm. Unless, of course, you mean the potential baby’s father, who’s parental rights might be harmed if he were not consulted and/or mollified. Ultimately, however, it must be the mother’s decision, for she and only she has to bear the child; and our society has given her the ultimate responsibility for raising the child. Because of that, most Americans believe (if TIME and CNN polls are to be believed) that it should be the mother’s choice.

And yes, based on my belief system, to which I cleave as dearly as you to yours, “if you are against abortion, then don’t have one” *is * perfectly logical.

109

[QUOTE=Sarahfeena]
All I said was that I would love it if there was never another abortion performed.
[/quote]
Surely you don’t believe that, in this hope, you differ meaningfully from other pro-choice people? I’d be willing to wager that almost zero pro-choice people are actually rooting for there to be abortions.

110

[QUOTE=AHunter3]
You who find abortion abhorrent and morally repellent because you think of it as the murdering of fetal people, kindly look up and check out your leadership. The right to life movement is heavily, if not universally, spearheaded by folks who would also take away access to contraceptives and birth control information, would make sex outside of marriage once again a punishable crime if they could, and are very open about the fact that what they explicitly WANT is a return to the old patriarchal double-standard society.

[/QUOTE]

:dubious: Hey man, don’t blame me, I voted for Kerry. Being pro-life =/= worshipping George Bush or any other “leader” you’d like to name.

As for the rest of your post, I’m not even sure how to respond. If I disagree that rounding up and murdering 100,000 men is a great idea, I must be a misogynist?

111

[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic]
I disagree that it’s a philospohical decision with regards to the law. It’s a practical and necessary decision to preserve the stability of human communities.
[/QUOTE]

Ah, the old dodge. Why is it necessary to preserve the stability of human communities?

112

My apologies for not posting back to this thread sooner. I don’t want anyone to think that I was trolling and trying to start trouble. I respect everyone’s opinion (you know, that often quoted thing about not agreeing with you but respecting your right to say it) but I am hoping to see people enunciate their determination of what is the start of human life and thus at what point would it no longer be merely the elimination of “tissue” or “biological material” (one medical report we read after one of the miscarriages referred to the disposal of “biological material” :eek: ) but the killing of a human being.

I guess the word “murder” is a little inflammatory. According to the American Heritage Dictionary, murder is defined as:
NOUN:

  1. The unlawful killing of one human by another, especially with premeditated malice.
    and a human is defined as:
    NOUN:
  2. A member of the genus Homo and especially of the species H. sapiens.

Kill (or killing) is defined as:
VERB:
killed , kill•ing , kills
VERB:
tr.
1.
a. To put to death.
b. To deprive of life:

and life is defined as:
NOUN:
pl. lives (l vz) KEY
1.
a. The property or quality that distinguishes living organisms from dead organisms and inanimate matter, manifested in functions such as metabolism, growth, reproduction, and response to stimuli or adaptation to the environment originating from within the organism.

Having broken down the terms involved in the word “murder”, nowhere do I see reference to sentience, consciousness, self-determination or viability. The same applies to “killing”. The stickler is the word “unlawful”. According to the USSC abortion is legal.

Let’s change the question instead to be, “At what point does abortion become the causing of the death of a human being?”

I’ll admit that my view is tainted by my personal history. At one point I believed that abortion at any point was OK, merely the removal of cells, and should never be restricted. After the birth of my son (the only one to, as he put it, “escape the womb of doom”), my view changed. My wife and I struggled over and over to get pregnant again. With hormonal assistance it would work but the pregnancies never held. Genetic tests, autopsies and tissue examinations could find no reason for the losses. Surgical attempts to maintain the pregnancies never worked. Instead, we watched an ultrasound one day of a baby sucking its thumb and then soon afterwards we had another funeral service.

While I hate the idea of abortion, I realize that there really are, what I consider, reasonable and legitimate reasons for having one performed which I have already enumerated. I also would not want to see a woman feel that she is to be forced to maintain a pregnancy she does not want or happened against her will. I can also understand the view that first trimester fetuses (fetus?, fetii?) do not have higher brain functions and, since the majority of spontaneous abortions occur during that time anyway, it is easier to define them more as developing sell clusters or parasites (not my view but one I have heard stated).

As an aside, I never said that a woman should give up sex and I do agree that no birth control is 100% effective. This is a fact I found out in college when my girlfriend got pregnant while on the pill. She originally was going to have an abortion, with my support, but then decided she wanted to keep the baby. I had no say in that matter except having to pay child support and then signing away my parental rights when she married someone else and he wanted to adopt the baby. You would think that this would push me more towards the “abortions at will up to the time they cut the cord” but, instead, I don’t begrudge her decision and, although I have never set eyes on him, I am glad that he is alive. He has a mother that loved him enough to keep him and a dad that I could not be at the time.

I don’t think that a woman carrying condoms with her makes her a slut anymore than a man carrying a condom in his wallet makes him a stud. Quite the opposite, because she is being responsible for her health and the health of her partner (we are faced with a plethora of debilitating and potentially deadly STDs, after all). Follow the Boy Scout motto, “Be prepared.”

Accidents happen. That’s why they are called accidents. If a couple has consensual sex and use birth control properly (don’t make balloon animals out of the rubbers and don’t wear the diaphragm like a yarmulke), the chance of her getting pregnant is significantly lower than if they hadn’t. But sometimes those little swimmers outfox the IUD and punch a whole through the condom. Does that mean a woman should be penalized? Hell, no.

I know this posting is long, but I wanted to clarify my views a little.

So, “At what point does abortion become the causing of the death of a human being?”

113

[QUOTE=Hentor the Barbarian]
Surely you don’t believe that, in this hope, you differ meaningfully from other pro-choice people? I’d be willing to wager that almost zero pro-choice people are actually rooting for there to be abortions.
[/QUOTE]
Maybe not “rooting,” per se, but I think most of them are at least pretty indifferent. Personally, let’s just say I wouldn’t facilitate anyone getting one, any more than I would have one myself.

114

[QUOTE=Sarahfeena]
Maybe not “rooting,” per se, but I think most of them are at least pretty indifferent.
[/quote]
Well, when we are not castrating puppies with a can-opener or with our teeth, sometimes we can be bothered to discern a feeling about the matter. :wink:

To be serious about it, I don’t think that many people regard the process as a simple or easy one, and many would hope that nobody has to go through it, which is why many people endorse the concept of “safe, legal and rare.”

Here’s my opinion: you are as pro-choice as I am. I think it follows very well from your beliefs that you would not facilitate others having an abortion, because you believe it to be murder. I respect that others may regard it as murder, so I would not be in favor of anyone being compelled to have an abortion. And, ss far as I know, there is no requirement that one has to drive someone to the clinic in order to be pro-choice.

However, if you are willing to allow others the choice, you are pro-choice. And because you recognize individual liberties and responsibilities and do not attempt to interrupt the legal rights of others by imposing your own beliefs, I find much to admire about your position.

115

[QUOTE=John Mace]
Ah, the old dodge. Why is it necessary to preserve the stability of human communities?
[/QUOTE]

It isn’t necessary in any absolute sense (NOTHING is necessary in an absolute sense), it’s just how humans have evolved. We’re evolved to survive in communites rather than as individuals. Our own biology and brain structure compels us to preserve those communities. You might as well ask why it’s necessary for bees to live in hives.

116

My answer is the same – never.

117

[QUOTE=Hentor the Barbarian]
Well, when we are not castrating puppies with a can-opener or with our teeth, sometimes we can be bothered to discern a feeling about the matter. :wink:
[/QUOTE]
Ha ha. :slight_smile: I’m sure that’s true, but as evidenced on this board, I think there are a lot of people who really have no moral issue about it whatsoever.

No, there is no requirement that someone has to drive someone to the clinic in order to be pro-choice. The thing is, I don’t like to use the term pro-choice to describe myself, because it is perceived as being the opposite of “pro-life,” which I most decidely am. Not that I am criticizing you for calling me pro-choice, since I obviously stated that I am not necessarily in favor of making abortion illegal. I just don’t think the pro-choice label really fits my feelings about it. To me, it would be a happy day if women chose not to have abortions. And when I say that I would not facilitate abortions, I mean that in much more than just the sense of not driving women to the clinic. I am against any legislation that might force me to pay for an abortion through my tax dollars, I avoid supporting organizations like Planned Parenthood in any way, even indirectly, I volunteer to help women find alternatives to abortion, etc. I am not necessarily in favor of outlawing abortions, but when I say “leave me out of it,” I mean it!!! :slight_smile:

But, all that being said, I do understand the issues that lead some women to desire abortions. We do not live in a perfect world, and so life will never be perfect. So, thank you for your kind words, and I hope I have not said too much here to make you regret them!

118

[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic]
My answer is the same – never.
[/QUOTE]

Diogenes, can you please expand on this? I know that you have probably stated your reasoning countless times, but I really would like to see it again. Is it a human being when the cord is cut? When the incubator with the screaming member of species Homo is wheeled from the room? When it is capable of coherent, cogent conversation? Sometime between fertilization and decomposition? When it joins the SDMB? :smiley:

I know that this probably sounds a little smart ass but I really would like people to give me their clear definition of the start of life. With those definitions, I can get a better view on how people delineate between what is the removal of tissue and what is the death of a person.

By the way, thank you all for participating. I am a newbie member of the board and have enjoyed reading your debates. Now I am participating and enjoying the repartee and especially loving the intellectual discourse. Reminds me of bull sessions I used to have with old buddies over adult beverages, many years ago.

119

[QUOTE=erie774]
I know that this probably sounds a little smart ass but I really would like people to give me their clear definition of the start of life.
[/QUOTE]

Well, mine is conception. (Surprise!)

120

[QUOTE=erie774]
I know that this probably sounds a little smart ass but I really would like people to give me their clear definition of the start of life.
[/QUOTE]
The start of life? Creation of a gamete, for me.