Anti-abortion question

[Munch]

Wow. Lets back up, just a bit.

A legal definition is in NO way a medical definition. You can look at Roe v. Wade all you like. But that argument doesn’t work. At all.

A legal definition is NOT proof. In fact, it is the ultimate of examples of an opinion. What does a supreme court judge do? Give an opinion. Not fact, not proof - opinion. Therefore, your beliefs are also immaterial. Lets stick to the FACTS, now shall we?

The fact is, a fetus is human. It may not be a human being, but that is indeed what we’re debating here.

“As I have said before, since the legal aspects of the abortion debate have been settled, the only arguments against it come from differing moral opnions on the matter.”

What? There are only two things to discuss in matters? And THOSE two are legal and moral? What happened to logical? What happened to philosophical? What happened to medical?

“We do need to discuss how society defines life”

No we don’t. We need to discuss how medicine defines life. Societies are too fallible. Societies are always changing and always being proved wrong. Truth cannot be trustfully placed into the hands of society. If we let society in general define absolute terms such as life and respect, the world would be a horrible place to live in.

It seems that every other post is a plea to stick to the facts. Why oh why do we keep beating the dead horse of public opinion and legal definitions?

[DoctorJ]

Here’s the problem with using the medical/scientific definitions:

Let’s say that we get out our Steadman’s Dictionary, and we decide that a fetus is, in fact, “alive”, or an “organism”. Does that mean it’s wrong to kill it? Obviously not–by the same definition, a cow, a geranium, and Staphylococcus aureus are also “alive”, and we kill them without a second thought.

OK, so instead we look for a scientific definition of “human”. For one thing, such a definition would presume the definition of “alive”. Even so, let’s assume that a fetus unquestionably meets this definition. Does that mean it’s wrong to kill it? Not necesarily–there are situations where some people believe it justified to kill a human. Some think that it’s justified to kill someone who has committed murder or other heinous crimes. Others think it is justified to kill someone (or, more commonly, let someone die) who is terminally ill and requests it.

So what I’m saying is that even if you can find a definition of “alive” or “human” that includes a fetus, you can’t make a conclusion on abortion from that definition without making a moral judgement.

Dr. J

[Munch]

Dr. - no, you certainly can’t. But I would think that using medical definitions are much better to use than “prevailing social customs” or legal trends.

Ultimately, this WILL come down to a moral decision, like most laws do. Murder is wrong, but justified if its the cause of self-defense. Theft is wrong, unless you have a REALLY good accountant.

I am undecided on abortion. I am so because I have yet to see a substantial argument. I have for a long time considered the pro-life side to overuse emotional and moral stances to “strengthen” their argument. But, at least from this board, I’ve seen the opposite.

Most of the pro-choice arguments end with “don’t take a woman’s right away” or “its the woman’s body” or “don’t get righteous with me”.

I don’t think it makes sense to say that human life begins at childbirth. Its obvious from an historical perspective that a child can survive before natural childbirth (induced labor, emergency c-sections, etc.). I think the purpose of this thread is to present a LOGICAL argument for or against abortion. But the fact is, facts scare people, and they don’t want to deal with them. I say, lets deal with them.

[St.Attila]

**
Besides, I don’t think it’s quite the right question. Ideally, we make laws based on ethics and not morals. Ethics deal with our interactions with other members of society. So a better question might be when do we consider it a member of society?**

But what does it mean to be a member of society? Does this include people with mental impairments? The comatose? Hermits? Someone taking a nap?

I agree that a big problem is subjective terms. I’m afraid, though, that “member of society” is one. It’s hardly a scientific concept. I think we should consider the Buddhist philosophy: all terms are subjective and notions like living/not living, viable/not viable, etc. are artificial, arbitrarily defined false dichotomies and an unfortunate legacy of Aristotelian logic.

Very little in nature is black and white. The stages of development of a fetus are not distinct, and while naming the stages is handy in discussions of fetal development, these names are a synthetic tool and not a physical reality. Brain activity does not switch on like a light bulb (and, in fact, high speed photography will attest that a light buld does not switch on like a light bulb). There is no real, physical difference beween Dr. J, the fertilized ovum, and Dr. J, the adult.

Furthermore, a human being has no intrinsic value; nothing has any intrinsic value as value is a synthetic property as well. So the question comes down to this: do we value human beings or not? If not, then murder should not be a crime. If so, then we should not kill human beings. (Note that this does not mean one can’t defend oneself with deadly force if one’s life is being threatened; in that case, one human is going to die and, on a larger scale, it doesn’t really matter which one.)

[Lissa]

We need to discuss how medicine defines life.

As medicine cannot pinpoint the moment a fetus becomes human, I don’t see much help there.

Philosphy isn’t much better. It is opinion, and this is supposed to be a factual arguement.

Logic? My logic and your logic seem to differ, so that’s just as subjective as philosophy, and moral opinion.

Ultimately, this WILL come down to a moral decision, like most laws do.

Then why the plea for logic and fact, if it’s going to eventually be a decision based on opinion?

[jenkinsfan]

Well, my own “personal narrow minded opinion” on a lot of things shouldn’t, I don’t think, be legislated or somehow pushed onto others who don’t share my opinion.

And unless you are pro-choice, that is exactly what you are doing.

Okay, I can see that. So, if a woman wants to abort herself, then I guess that is her choice. But I agree that she shouldn’t have the right to force her opinions of abortion on someone else.

That’s great, but it doesn’t answer the question. The question was would you change your views on something because another group of people with another view on an issue believes it? In don’t think you would. Yet, you would ask others who do not share in your book to abandon their beliefs. I do not see the consistancy here.

Oh, and saying, “I’m right and they’re wrong because the book says so” won’t fly here. This ain’t the LBMB.

I not only feel that abortion is against Biblical principles, but I also feel that it’s just down right wrong and uncivilized. I know the “I’m right and they’re wrong because the book says so” won’t fly here and I never said that.

I am all for dissenting views, and I’ve even had my mind changed by them from time to time. However, you brought up that you get your beliefs from a book. I contend that you should not be able to force those beliefs on others who do not look at this book with the reverence that you do.

So, tell me that you SHOULD be able to do that, yet also not be under any obligation to follow the teachings of a book that is not the Bible, and provide a good reason why this is so.

This is exactly why I said what I said about how this has no bearing on the issue as presented in this thread.

I never said that the nation should be run by the Bible. I think it’s best to practice what the Bible teaches, but I do believe in freedom of religion. I also believe in allowing other people around me to exist. If that is a Biblical moral or just common sense I don’t know.

Why should we assume that there is something there?
Because that’s convenient for you?

No, we shouldn’t assume anything about life based on convenience. BTW, which is more convenient: raising a child for nearly 2 decades and dedicating your entire life to raising him/her and providing for them, or ending their life before it ever started so you wouldn’t have to?

Why should we assume anything when the woman - remember her? - is perfectly able to voice her opinion and do with her body what she wishes?

Really? So a woman can
steal something with her own her hand(a member of her body, mind you) and it’s ok? Or even better-Can a Christian woman put her hands around one of the children in her Sunday School class and force them to convert or take a beating? She would be using her own body…

You don’t have to like it. I don’t like a lot of things people do. But if they are not hurting anyone else (and they are not in this case), me liking it is irrelevant.

Sir, I’m glad that your mother decided not to abort you because she would have not only took your life but robbed us of an interesting conversationalist. How many scientists, engineers, teachers, Christians, and yes even skeptics have been destroyed by abortion before they ever got a chance. I wonder how many would be pro-choicers have been aborted themselves. My liking or abortion or not liking it is not the question. It’s whether the children who are being aborted like it.

Well, what are you going to eat today, jenkinsfan? Whatever it is, it was living, and you chose your life over that pig, cow, grain, or whatever it was. Before you KILLED it! Or had someone else KILL it for you, before you came in like a vulture and ate it! And I’m not even talking about a potential cow here, I mean Bessie in all her Mooing glory!

I actually did have a hamburger today. Yes, a cow died to feed me. But the difference in our logic stems from my being a Christian and believing that life isn’t a lucky act of fate in which all creatures (including both cows and man) evolved from the same cell. I believe that God created everything with a specific purpose. Some of the animals He provided us with were meant for eating, hence the hamburger.

I am not saying that you are judging them, jenkinsfan. But you are prepared to take away that choice from them, which is something I cannot see any good coming from.

The women seem prepared to take a choice away from the fetuses they are aborting. I don’t see any good in that either.

TIME ELAPSED SINCE I QUIT SMOKING:
One month, one week, six days, 5 hours, 33 minutes and 38 seconds.
1729 cigarettes not smoked, saving $216.16.
Life saved: 6 days, 5 minutes.

Congratulations! SLIGHTLY OFF TOPIC: Why did you leave the LBMB?

[Munch]

Because unlike many, I choose to base my opinion on the facts at hand, rather than general consensus and heresay.

Bringing out all the facts is the only way to fairly form an opinion.

Now, if we could please get back to the FACTS!!

No, medicine cannot pinpoint the point at which a fetus becomes human. But I imagine that it could possibly prove that a fetus IS human (if we finally decide to talk facts). Therefore, it will be a lot of help.

Philosophy may not BE factual, but it is BASED on facts. Opinion? Sure. Logical? Definitely.

If our logic processes were the same, there wouldn’t be a need for this board. I’m very much interested in other people’s view of the facts on this issue. As it stands, there have been several good cases. But none of them (and I’m not about to throw one out there, myself) has addressed all of the issues at hand.

[pldennison]

Sir, I’m glad that your mother decided not to abort you because she would have not only took your life but robbed us of an interesting conversationalist. How many scientists, engineers, teachers, Christians, and yes even skeptics have been destroyed by abortion before they ever got a chance. I wonder how many would be pro-choicers have been aborted themselves. My liking or abortion or not liking it is not the question. It’s whether the children who are being aborted like it.

Aside from the fact that this is an utter non sequitor (fetuses have no likes or dislikes, as they have no external stimuli to speak of; and prior to a certain developmental stage are not capable of feeling pain) . . . the obvious flipside is to ask how many Hitlers, Maos, Stalins, Mansons and Gacys have been prevented.

[Lissa]

Bringing out all the facts is the only way to fairly form an opinion.

Now, if we could please get back to the FACTS!!

Not to nitpick, Connor, but you haven’t exactly been burning up the board with facts yourself. Mostly, your statements have been opinion. Set a good example.

Philosophy may not BE factual, but it is BASED on facts.

Sometimes.

But I imagine that it could possibly prove that a fetus IS human (if we finally decide to talk facts). Therefore, it will be a lot of help.

Imagine? Let’s stick to the FACTS here! A fetus IS human, in the sense that it has human DNA, and all of the necessary componants to become a human being. But, to paraphrase another poster, an apple seed is not an apple tree. Medical science cannot establish what is primarily a philisophical point: whether the fetus should have the same status as a post-birth person, so there are no “facts” there to help us along.

[St.Attila]

Lissa,

You know what a seed is and what a tree is. When does one become the other? The terms “seed” and “tree” are descriptions of one thing at two different points in time. They are defined by example (this is a seed, this is a tree), but the reality is the distinction is arbitrary and artificial. They are the same thing.

It’s like the philosophical question, “how much money do you need to be rich?” If you say a million dollars, does that mean if you have $999,999 you are poor? And if not, then if you have $999,998 are you poor? The problem here is applying synthetic, black and white concepts like rich/poor or seed/tree to evaluate something that does not naturally have these attributes.

From a scientific standpoint, these terms are only comparisons. Someone with a million dollars is more rich than someone with $999,999. A germinated seed is more a tree than a freshly planted seed. An adult is more a person than a fertilized ovum. But any division between rich/poor, seed/plant, or person/non-person is arbitrary, artificial, and unscientific, because it can not be empirically determined, as these categories and their divisions do not actually exist.

[Munch]

Oh give me break! I not at any point have claimed to have taken a side, therefore, what’s the point in digging up my own facts? What side would I present? And once I did, I would lose all credibility as a third party!

“Imagine? Let’s stick to the FACTS here!”

What the hell is this? Sorry to use an expression… But you’ll also notice that I qualified that “imagine” with a conditional - that we present some facts to be able to fill in the blanks.

Nothing is absolute, dear. I think the human race is smart enough to be able to deduce and figure some things out, provided they have enough information. We do not in this argument at this point. We’re getting there, but its these tangents which are drawing the focus away from them.

“Medical science cannot establish what is primarily a philisophical point: whether the fetus should have the same status as a post-birth person, so there are no “facts” there to help us along.”

You jump so many steps here. No, obviously medical science can’t determine these things. But it can do much much more. It can help us determine HOW human a fetus is. It can tell us roughly at what point a fetus become viable. It can tell us at what point the fetus is mostly developed. It can tell us about the physical relationship between the mother (or from your perspective - the host) and the fetus. If you want to discount medical science, then you need to stop arguing.

[Lissa]

I not at any point have claimed to have taken a side, therefore, what’s the point in digging up my own facts?

Then stop bitching at me to do it. I haven’t “taken a side” either, by the way.

No, obviously medical science can’t determine these things. But it can do much much more. It can help us determine HOW human a fetus is. It can tell us roughly at what point a fetus become viable. It can tell us at what point the fetus is mostly developed.

True. I never denied that. What I did deny is science’s ability to tell us when a fetus becomes a “baby.” That is philosphical, and will be hotly debated no matter what proclamation medical science would make on the matter.

It can tell us about the physical relationship between the mother (or from your perspective - the host) and the fetus.

I have not expressed a personal opinion, or perspective on the matter, and don’t intend to, as it has no bearing on this discussion, so please refrain from telling me what my perspective is. I have never used the word “host” to describe a pregnant woman. I used terms like “fetus” rather than terms like “baby” merely to avoid the emotional connotation.

If you want to discount medical science, then you need to stop arguing.

Oh, do I, now? Maybe YOU need to tell me who died and left you in charge of this discussion. Sheesh!

[Munch]

Lissa: Fair enough. I looked back through the thread to reacquaint myself with everyone’s arguments. While there is a predominant pro-choice flavor to it, your posts are quite partisan.

Trying to take a neutral approach, I tried to steer the conversation towards the facts and away from bashing pro-life “emotional reasons”. I imagine you know what I mean by that.

Then I tried to figure out why I perceived you as one of these debators. I think I put my thumb on it. Your comment “You are trying to make your morals my law” was perceived by me as an argument typical of what was (IMHO) hijacking the thread. It tinted your messages for me, and then, the discussion was just you and me for a while, so it all snowballed.

Sorry.

But seriously, just stick to the facts!!!

[Dangerosa]

I still think the life/not life thing is a red herring.

Given that the fetus is a live human being (which I don’t actually believe – I believe that all lives begin and end on a continuum - that there is life and death, but also undefined stages between which are neither alive nor dead - braindead being a possible example), I still don’t get where a woman has to be the life support system for this human being. If we could do “fetal transplants” and transplant the fetus to a willing host - great! But the current host is unwilling to be the host. To those that say “but that would be murder,” we kill people every day in this world without it being considered murder.

[Munch]

Dangerosa,

I don’t understand your point. You agree with the side that says that the fetus’ life is human, and at least in one case, worth saving.

But then you justify killing, it seems.

I guess I can’t think of other instances of killing that aren’t considered murder. Ok, there’s capital punishment, but that’s punishment (if you like). There’s war, but that is for the most part attempted to be justified. There’s car accidents, but that’s an accident, not killing. What are your examples? I’m confused.

[St.Attila]

**
[…]Given that the fetus is a live human being […], I still don’t get where a woman has to be the life support system for this human being. […]the current host is unwilling to be the host. To those that say “but that would be murder,” we kill people every day in this world without it being considered murder.
**

And, what, that’s a good thing?

“Given that the fetus is a live human being,” and that it is in my best interest (and yours) that we respect the lives of human beings, we should not kill the fetus.

Can you really say a host’s discomfort is more important than someone’s life? Can you imagine yourself saying, “I am in a separate class from those other humans, and my desires are far more important than their very lives?” I know Nazis could say that.

For a woman who is pregnant as the result of rape, it’s like part of the rape is continuing. That’s horrible. But it’s for nine months, not a lifetime. There are people in drought-stricken and war-torn countries whose lives are far worse. People survived Auschwitz. People are born and live with painful, disfiguring diseases. We’re not living in a utopia; there is no (excuse the expression) God-given right to a comfortable life. Bad things happen. Adjust. Deal with it. Yes, it sucks to be pregnant with your rapist’s baby. But at least you’re not dead.

(And don’t get me started on people who choose to have sex – with or without “protection” – then don’t want to be inconvenienced with the inevitable result.)

[Munch]

St. Attila, you bring up good points, but I think your points on rape victims are a bit extreme.

I think to an extent they’re valid, but could be discussed more. What really struck me wasn’t the statement “adjust, deal with it” (paraphrase, sorry), but that you said this after saying that a pregnancy arising from such a circumstance is like a continuation of the rape.

The comparison to Bosnia and such I don’t think is fair. Those people have absolutely no control over their situation. Rape victims do.

If we say that abortion is murder (assume this for this argument), what concession do we give the victim? This is tough. If its regarded as a continuation of the rape, I don’t think its anyone’s right to tell that woman to deal with it, it could be worse - because it can’t.

Damn. This is tough.

[Sweet_Lotus]

**
“Given that the fetus is a live human being,” and that it is in my best interest (and yours) that we respect the lives of human beings, we should not kill the fetus.
**

It is in our best interest to respect the lives of human beings who have already been born, who would choose not to be forced into parenthood.

[Sweet_Lotus]

**
“Given that the fetus is a live human being,” and that it is in my best interest (and yours) that we respect the lives of human beings, we should not kill the fetus.
**

It is in our best interest to respect the lives of human beings who have already been born, who would choose not to be forced into parenthood.

[St.Attila]

**
[…] I think to an extent [your points are] valid, but could be discussed more.
**

Oh, absolutely. I’ve been on the other side of the fence on this issue in the past, and I’m always ready to be swayed by a good argument.

**
What really struck me wasn’t the statement “adjust, deal with it” (paraphrase, sorry), but that you said this after saying that a pregnancy arising from such a circumstance is like a continuation of the rape.
**

To clarify, I did say it’s like part of the rape is continuing, meaning the pregnancy is not a “side effect” of the rape, but part of it. This does not imply, however, that the following nine months is anything like the brutality of the rape itself. This is not nine months of torture, and for those who say it is, I presented the examples you took exception with:

**The comparison to Bosnia and such I don’t think is fair. Those people have absolutely no control over their situation. Rape victims do. **

Well, I wasn’t trying to make an analogy; I was just saying that nine months of pregnancy, even as the result of rape, pales when compared to the experience of survivors of the Bosnian war, for example. Considering what people have survived throughout history, ending a pregnancy that resulted from a rape seems extremely selfish, at the least, in comparison.

**
If we say that abortion is murder (assume this for this argument), what concession do we give the victim?
**

The only concession possible is between the victim and the perpetrator. The fetus does not play a role in any concession. If you mean to ask what does she deserve from society, well, nothing. Everyone deserves a life, but not necessarily a good life. That’s not a given; that’s a bonus. Reminds me of the Buddhists (again) and their expression, “life is suffering,” meaning a difficult, crappy life is normal, and every nice or even neutral thing that happens should be appreciated.

It is your own responsibility to have a good life, but clearly that can’t extend to interfering with someone else’s life. Otherwise, how could we say rape is bad? Someone is getting something out of it. (Let me apologize right here to rape victims for the insensitivity of that statement; I am purposefully trying to leave my emotions out of this discussion.)

Our role is to do what we would do if the rape victim had not become pregnant: console, comfort, and support her. Only in this situation, we do it for nine months.

This is tough. If its regarded as a continuation of the rape, I don’t think its anyone’s right to tell that woman to deal with it, it could be worse - because it can’t.

It can’t? Like I said, she could be dead. Tell me that if you were pregnant with your rapist’s baby, you would gladly trade your situation for a life in Bosnia, Ethiopia, or the Jewish Ghetto in WWII. Oh, yeah, it could definitely be worse. A lot worse.

But, okay, I don’t have the right to tell a woman to deal with it. I do have a responsibility to save an endangered human life, though. I don’t see a conflict there, since that’s the woman’s responsibility too. I’m just reminding her of it. Society can not function if we act like children instead of adults. Children want their rights. Adults handle their responsibilities first.

**Damn. This is tough.
**

I appreciate your struggle.