Heh. Sorry, buddy. Sorry for stealing your, er, thunder.
A newborn infant or severely retarded child does not directly effect the physical health of it’s mother, nor are they wholly dependent on her for their existence. If she does not want to take care of the child, she can give it up with no risk to her health.
I think that late term-abortion should only be allowed under unique circumstances…
Is that clear enough for you BEN HICKS…
Yes I know the difference between the Supreme Court and the US Senate and to get to the Supreme Court you have to go through the Senate and House BOB COS.
I have had a few members of my family to be members of the US Senate, the last of which was President Pro-Tempera and served with seven presidents starting with Truman so you count the terms (6 years each plus an addition 1 1/2 years), I know a little about how the governing bodies work ……
My uterus, my vagina, my body, my life, my bloody business…
It will not be made illegal and if all else fails states rights will step into this and the political repercussions will ruin some major careers. The politicians behind those careers will not allow this issue to do that, they have more important fish to fry…
What you need to spend your energy on is promoting national funded free birth control and tubule ligation and yes abortion.
Stopping all welfair insentive to have more children than you can afford on your own. That way you would not have all of these unwanted children growing up being abused or worse killed by parents that don’t give a shit.
You might cut down on abortion numbers tremendously and you would save a fortune in the long run by not having abused children growing up to start the vicious cycle of abuse and criminal behavior all over again.
That would probably cut down on crime, prison cost and the overwhelming burden that has bogged down our legal system, to the point where the Supreme Court could not get around to hearing such a frivolous case of overturning the right to have an abortion for the next 5 years anyway…
Really for the love of common sense, please try to find some…
:rolleyes:
That was Bob Ross…right?
Good lord this thread is a train wreck. It’s absolutely all over the place!
Bryan Ekers
If the woman shows no outward signs of pregnancy then she will be treated as someone who is not pregnant. Hell, even if she is heavily pregnant she still wouldn’t be barred from being able to travel anywhere she wants. Innocent until proven guilty and all that.
The mere fact that a woman is pregnant is not, by itself, reason to suspect that she will probably get an abortion. Therefore there would be no restrictions on travel arrangements.
Yeah, sure. Way I see it, either women have the uninhibited right to choose or they do not. Your earlier statement betrayed your position. Thanks for clarifying.
Sorry that was 8 presidents and 7 terms with the Senate BOB COS my mistake…
**I mean duh, howzabout this part you conveniently left out:
**Your “facts” don’t lead to your conclusion. On to the next…
**Although I will state for the record that I support a ban, I have NOT in this thread presented an argument for one in my interaction with you. I have, with regard to your contribution, explained why your argument regarding the practicality of enforcement is weak. Do you understand the distinction here? I know it’s hard.
**Repeating that this is unenforceable ad infinitum will not make it true.
**OK, I’ll type real slow for you. My “resolve” comment was made when you asked me how I would go about enforcing a ban. Remember? If not, please look back over the thread; I’m sure it will jog your memory. You didn’t ask me how I would resolve world hunger, or eradicate all the problems of all people, or eliminate the problem of how to deal with unwanted children, or how to turn sealing wax into gold. That’s the principal reason I didn’t answer these questions. I responded to your question regarding how we would actually as a practical matter make abortions stop. Since that’s what you asked (this sinking in?).
My answer was that the ban itself would resolve most of the cases of abortion. In case my wording was not quite elegant and clear enough for you, let me state it differently: I believe most abortions will not take place if a ban were in place; most (not all) people will simply not do something illegal. Hope you don’t lose any more sleep over this.
**Yes, hence the weakness of all your arguments that rest on this foundation, since you have offered nothing to support this belief.
**Keep saying it. That’ll make it true.
**You can continue to try to craft my argument for me, but I ain’t biting. I have addressed certain weaknesses in your argument. Period. You can’t expand my argument into something you’re more comfortable arguing with.
**I understand your views. Stating something is evil or virtuous doesn’t make them so. Do you understand what a real argument is? Keep trying, I’ll let you know when you get to something that resembles one.
No, I’m the guy telling you that an argument based on “it’s unenforceable” isn’t particularly strong if you haven’t demonstrated why this activity, out of all things that could be banned, is actually unenforceable. You can expand your argument for why a ban is evil into whatever areas you want; that won’t change what my counter-argument addressed, much as you’d apparently like it to.
Apos, that’s a brilliant statement. I whole-heartedly agree with you. Definitions have little to do with morality.
There are many aspects to morality. Many questions need to be asked in order to determine whether abortion is moral. Some people may not believe in absolute morality, and so the discussion would end there. I’m not sure if I’m one of those people or not, so I’ll continue with the discussion assuming there is an absolute morality.
In determining the morality of abortion, one question a person could ask is: “does the fetus suffer?” A similar issue is at the core of debate over animal rights. If the fetus does not suffer, or (as I will argue) is incapable of suffering, then one is in a better position to argue that abortion is not immoral.
My personal belief is that a fetus is completely incapable of suffering, just as most animals are incapable of suffering (again, in my opinion.) The criterion I’ve used in this determination is self-awareness.
Self-awareness is the knowledge that one is separate from his/her surroundings. If an organism is not self-aware it can not have self-referential thoughts. This means that these organisms would be incapable of thinking “I feel pain,” or “I am being hurt.” This lack of ability to reflect on its own circumstances by definition means that the organism can not be suffering.
The next obvious question is: “how do we know whether an organism is self-aware?” One popular method is the “mirror-test.” This involves marking an animals face (a part of the body the animal can not normally examine) with bright red paint, then placing that animal in front of a mirror. The assumption is that if the animal understands that it is an individual, separate from the rest of his surroundings, it will notice the markings and examine them. There are numerous variations on this test.
Most animals fail this test. Some do not however.
I anticipate that some of the respondents to this post will cite the look of agony in a former pet’s eyes as that pet writhed on the floor in pain, or some similar example. I would like to preemptively address this issue. Let us consider a dog who is suffering from cancer. The animal may be feeling pain, but it is not experiencing pain. How can an organism which has no sense-of-self and is unable to distinguish itself from the rest of the world experience anything? There is no entity there to have the experience, if you get my meaning. One could conceive of a robot a robot (such as animatronics used in the movies) which mimic all the associated facial expressions and sounds associated with pain and suffering in an animal. But is that robot actually suffering?
So how does this relate to abortion? Well, as I previously stated, part of the question regarding the morality of abortion involves asking whether an abortion would cause the fetus to suffer. Is the fetus self-aware is it no more than a collection of cells with more than a little similarity to a tumorous growth? Obviously you can’t conduct the mirror test on a fetus. But you can conduct the mirror test on young children - and they consistently fail until approximately 18 months of age. Since it would be unlikely that the fetus was self aware in the womb, lost this self-awareness upon birth, then again became self aware at a later age, it can safely be concluded that fetuses are not self-aware. Therefore, they can not suffer. Therefore, it is not immoral to cause them pain. It would be no more immoral to cause a fetus pain than to disassemble a robot. (NOTE: The last sentence only holds if suffering is your only criteria for determining morality. Obviously there are other criteria, but I am just working on part of the puzzle.)
Some may also respond to this post by asking me if I would feel alright with killing a 1 month old child, who would not be self-aware and therefore, by my logic could not suffer. All I will say here is that the child would not suffer and that makes it LESS immoral than some might believe. Although they may not know it, most human beings see this issue the same way, as is made clear through the inversely proportional relationship between infanticide and a child’s age. It may still be immoral for other reasons.
I would like to state that this is how I see the morality of abortion… in the context of suffering. Please feel free to address my arguments, or to bring up other aspects of immorality which I have not considered. I am very open to debate. At the same time, expect some resistance if you are attacking the specific arguments I’ve made above, because I do believe those arguments to be fairly well thought out.
Also, if you require cites for any of the facts cited above, just ask. Finally, sorry for the long post.
Apos, that’s a brilliant statement. I whole-heartedly agree with you. Definitions have little to do with morality.
There are many aspects to morality. Many questions need to be asked in order to determine whether abortion is moral. Some people may not believe in absolute morality, and so the discussion would end there. I’m not sure if I’m one of those people or not, so I’ll continue with the discussion assuming there is an absolute morality.
In determining the morality of abortion, one question a person could ask is: “does the fetus suffer?” A similar issue is at the core of debate over animal rights. If the fetus does not suffer, or (as I will argue) is incapable of suffering, then one is in a better position to argue that abortion is not immoral.
My personal belief is that a fetus is completely incapable of suffering, just as most animals are incapable of suffering (again, in my opinion.) The criterion I’ve used in this determination is self-awareness.
Self-awareness is the knowledge that one is separate from his/her surroundings. If an organism is not self-aware it can not have self-referential thoughts. This means that these organisms would be incapable of thinking “I feel pain,” or “I am being hurt.” This lack of ability to reflect on its own circumstances by definition means that the organism can not be suffering.
The next obvious question is: “how do we know whether an organism is self-aware?” One popular method is the “mirror-test.” This involves marking an animals face (a part of the body the animal can not normally examine) with bright red paint, then placing that animal in front of a mirror. The assumption is that if the animal understands that it is an individual, separate from the rest of his surroundings, it will notice the markings and examine them. There are numerous variations on this test.
Most animals fail this test. Some do not however.
I anticipate that some of the respondents to this post will cite the look of agony in a former pet’s eyes as that pet writhed on the floor in pain, or some similar example. I would like to preemptively address this issue. Let us consider a dog who is suffering from cancer. The animal may be feeling pain, but it is not experiencing pain. How can an organism which has no sense-of-self and is unable to distinguish itself from the rest of the world experience anything? There is no entity there to have the experience, if you get my meaning. One could conceive of a robot a robot (such as animatronics used in the movies) which mimic all the associated facial expressions and sounds associated with pain and suffering in an animal. But is that robot actually suffering?
So how does this relate to abortion? Well, as I previously stated, part of the question regarding the morality of abortion involves asking whether an abortion would cause the fetus to suffer. Is the fetus self-aware is it no more than a collection of cells with more than a little similarity to a tumorous growth? Obviously you can’t conduct the mirror test on a fetus. But you can conduct the mirror test on young children - and they consistently fail until approximately 18 months of age. Since it would be unlikely that the fetus was self aware in the womb, lost this self-awareness upon birth, then again became self aware at a later age, it can safely be concluded that fetuses are not self-aware. Therefore, they can not suffer. Therefore, it is not immoral to cause them pain. It would be no more immoral to cause a fetus pain than to disassemble a robot. (NOTE: The last sentence only holds if suffering is your only criteria for determining morality. Obviously there are other criteria, but I am just working on part of the puzzle.)
Some may also respond to this post by asking me if I would feel alright with killing a 1 month old child, who would not be self-aware and therefore, by my logic could not suffer. All I will say here is that the child would not suffer and that makes it LESS immoral than some might believe. Although they may not know it, most human beings see this issue the same way, as is made clear through the inversely proportional relationship between infanticide and a child’s age. It may still be immoral for other reasons.
I would like to state that this is how I see the morality of abortion… in the context of suffering. Please feel free to address my arguments, or to bring up other aspects of immorality which I have not considered. I am very open to debate. At the same time, expect some resistance if you are attacking the specific arguments I’ve made above, because I do believe those arguments to be fairly well thought out.
Also, if you require cites for any of the facts cited above, just ask. Finally, sorry for the long post.
**Eh, still could be interesting though.
**Nope, not this right by itself.
**Which woman are we talking about here? If you mean the genetic mother, I don’t happen to view this as donating, but again, I’d say she has that right, provided it is not an active step that will unavoidably destroy the fetus.
As noted, can’t evict the fetus if that active step ensures the child’s destruction. The bone marrow donor, who may be behaving immorally, is not in an analogous situation if she stops donating, for the reason I noted previously. Does that clarify?
Please to answer my question first, Señor. Do you agree with the moral distinction between an infant and a skin cell with regard to the right to life?
I would. I’d stop at nothing to do it too. Crossing state lines, leaving the country, doing it myself, risking my own death, I would still evict.
That’s the problem with your position, Bob. You don’t understand or care about the kind of desparation you could induce in a person who, if you saw her on the street, you would never assume would go to that kind of illegal length to get what she wants.
How can you tell a person what she has to endure to satisfy your morals? How can you possibly think that isn’t cruel?
What could possibly lead you to conclude I don’t care for such a person? And can you understand that the logical counter question is, how can you possibly not think it cruel to end an innocent life?
The fact that someone is desperate enough to commit an immoral/illegal act is not justification for making the act legal. That person deserves our compassion, but does not get a free pass to kill a fellow human being.
I think I see where you are coming from now, Bob Cos. Thanks for taking the time to clarify. It appears you see an abortion as an active step, completely different to refusing assistance. Needless to say, I don’t differentiate.
When you stated :
I would be curious as to what you view it as. I view it as a human being (the fetus), needing the use of another human being’s organs/body (the ‘mother’).
I’m assuming you do view the fetus as another human being, and you do see its current dependence on the woman for incubation.
I’d just like to add I’m not trying to play semantics, I’m just really interested in how you view it, since to me, viewing it any other way than above puts the woman in a position as an ‘unequal’ human. I’m truly interested in how you view it, if not as giving the use of her body for nine months.
A zyogote is not an “innocent life.” most abortionas are performed in the first trimester, long before it is rational or meaningful to characterize it as “ending a life.” It is the termination of a process which has the potential to result in the birth of a person, and I can even concede the ethical ambiguity of late term abortions, but to equate any termination of pregnancy at any point with “taking a life” is needlessly polemic and undercuts your own credibility. (I’m not one to talk, I know)
Enough with moral judgements too. Remove the beam from thine own eye and all that.
I’ve read your posts, and in all of them you have deemed that a fetus should be protected above anything else. After all the times in all the threads that it’s been explained to you by people like myself and MsRobyn the suffering that can be caused by an unwanted pregnancy, all you have ever said boils down to ‘too bad for you.’ How do I conclude that you don’t care for such a person? You’re still here arguing that you should get to make the choice that she has to give birth.
how can you possibly not think it cruel to end an innocent life?
[/quote]
I don’t consider it a life in the same way that I am ‘a life’, and I think that because a fetus cannot suffer, but I can, the deference goes to me.
It doesn’t have to be made legal, because it already is legal. There is, however, no justification for making it illegal simply because you don’t like it.
I’ve already said I’d abort anyway, so hypothetically how would you say I should be punished for leaving the country and aborting?
Of course elective abortions are rarely if ever performed on zygotes
.
Ah, but that’s not what Blaron gave. Allow me to quote:
See? Blalron’s claim is that memories, feelings, thoughts and interactions with people are what makes something “a person.” That is the point which I was addressing. If one is indeed justified in killing something that lacks memories, feelings, thoughts and interactions, then should pro-choicers not condone infanticide and the killing of severely retarded individuals?
So, before we proceed any further, are you in agreement with Blalron’s definition, or do you contest it? Once you answer, we can discuss the criteria which you had set forth.
State abortion laws, the ones that would go back into effect if Roe v. Wade is overturned, target the abortion provider. State legislators are canny enough about what is politically feasible and what is not.