I thought I had sufficiently modeled a justification for child rape. Whether or not a person adopts that is up to them.
I wasn’t mentioning crack dealing as an additional offense commited by the perpetrator, but as an example of the other end of the spectrum.
My point was that if you consider the act to be commited by another child instead of an extremely disturbed adult, then you’re in a different context again. Let’s say you had a situation in which the parents of two children (For this scenario say 12 or 13 years old) decided to arrange a marriage at a young age. Part of this marriage naturally would include sex. Now if the girl still doesn’t want to do this but the boy does, and the parents of the girl say she has to… Its my understanding that a husband forcing himself on his wife is still considered rape (wasn’t that the bobbitt situation?), so what now? Girl doesn’t want to be penetrated, guy does… rape ensues…
Certainly this isn’t desirable to our western eyes, but does it describe a universally amoral act? Is it every bit as amoral as a grown man forcing himself upon a young girl? If not then how is the specific morality issue at stake universal? Wouldn’t you then have to define even more specific contexts for when child rape is always…and even then you can’t be sure whether or not somebody can come along with another example that makes you refine it even further… So basically you go from the universal “child rape is always wrong” to a laundry list of categories into which an act may fall, each with its own moral implication and perhaps each with its own personal/cultural interpretation.
Can an immoral person oppose abortion?
Or is assassinating a doctor who performs them a heartfelt expression of one’s respect for life?
It means I really wanted to know, beagledave! There was no rolling-eyed sarcasm intended!
I don’t find all Great Debates threads pointless… just the ones that directly concern a person’s individual morality or faith (like the “does God exist” threads, I guess). Anyway, I’m not trying to stop people from discussing abortion, I just dislike the way the threads are started with questions that seem intended to spark a debate on whether abortion itself is right or wrong but pretend to focus on some abortion-related topic instead. I could list some examples but it’s probably irrelevant here.
Well you have not offered any cites to buttress your assertion that “medical science cannot define when a human life begins”. JThunder offered the medical testimony of several geneticists and biologists. (yes, I know the web site is a pro life site…the Senate testimony is still accurate and available on numerous sites) Among other statements:
- Dr. Richard V. Jaynes: “To say that the beginning of human life cannot be determined scientifically is utterly ridiculous.”
I offered a similar type of source (with medical text references at end of article).
If you wish to argue that medical science can not determine when “personhood” starts…that’s a different philosophical matter, usually related to the culture of the day…and surely NOT addressed by science. But to state that medical science does not offer up a valid opinion on when human life begins is demonstrably false.
. **
[/QUOTE]
edwino,
You seem to have grasped my question. It’s not a matter of whether abortion is a right or a decision or legal… This concerns the balance of when it is better to kill something (mass of cells, fetus, baby, whatever).
pennylane,
whether human life is more valuable than a pig’s or snail’s is a good topic for another thread.
This is not another thread to discuss whether abortion is right or wrong. This is just the acceptance of killing an organism and discussing it on those terms. NO PC TERMS.
(side story: A co-worker’s step-father was in the hospital. One day he says “dad is better , he is going home today for hospice”. I asked what was wrong with him and he said nothing now. The question is whether he understood what hospice was or was he just trying to ignore the facts that his dad was dying. He just died today)
thats the reason for the question about when is it a human that is being killed. BTW: I define murder differently from killing.
I am not trying to convert anyone. I just want people to think of what is going on and make a decision on the facts and not buzz words .
You know, my position on the subject has been posted (by me and others) on other abortion threads, and it’s not a “straddle,” no matter how much it looks like one at first glance.
Very simply, I see the world as divided into two groups of people, having in the first instance nothing to do with their stand on abortion: Those who are so fully convinced that they or their side on a given subject are absolutely correct that their side has the right to impose that viewpoint on all persons, and those who do not.
I am against virtually all abortions, personally, and would not, if I were a woman, have one performed on me, because I do feel that it is the taking of a “potential human life” – the “potential” simply refusing to draw a line in the sand and call one side of a continuous process from fertilization to the attainment of physical maturity and legal majority “before” and the other “after.” A fertilized pre-mitosis ovum has the potential to grow into a human being. It is, rather obviously, not yet one in any sense but the metaphysical – it cannot pledge its allegiance to the flag nor can it demonstrate against a war; it cannot repent of its sins nor reason that atheism is the only logical stance; and so on.
However, I feel very strongly that, just as a person whose CPR is keeping another person alive at the scene of an accident is morally bound to keep the CPR up until he/she can be relieved, but cannot legally be prosecuted for murder if he/she should quit administering CPR, say out of fatigue, the woman who is pregnant is the sole person with the moral right to decide if she will continue to support that potential human life that is depending on her and which has the ability to make major changes in her life.
In short, I am anti-abortion but pro-choice.
Any other stance is to me demanding that “my way is right, and you must obey it.”
well my Carp, (where did you get that name? it was always my favorite saint)
circa 1850:
If we were discussing slave’s rights then would it be the same argument. You could say “the slaves are not human so they don’t have rights and I can’t force my views on you”?
I’m not sure that it IS rather obvious (see cites above). of course by your listed criteria, my 3 month old daughter is not a human being either…
Of course, you chose as your example… a “fertilized pre-mitosis ovum”…exactly how many of those undergo an ELECTIVE abortion? That’s not exactly relative to the discussion at hand.
Done by governments on a regular basis…from slavery abolishment, to child work laws, to OSHA restrictions and regulations, to child welfare laws…
Is the abortion case unique in some respects…yes.
Is there sometimes a conflict between the “rights” of the birth mother and the “rights” of the embryo/fetus…yes
(just as there are rights in conflict in many of the scenarios above)
But the notion that “my way is right, and you must obey it”…as dictated by the representative government (assuming, we’re discussing a democracy) is done on a regular basis. If there IS such a problem in a government mandating a particular moral view on it’s populice, then perhaps we ought to toss out the 13th and 14th Amendments to the U.S. Constitution?
Actually, Justin, a majority of Supreme Court Justices, led by the Chief Justice, adopted precisely that logic in 1857. Although I don’t normally look to the Supreme Court as my guidance in ethical matters… 
But by that same theory, you could be compelled, say by a majority of SDMB members or the decision of any two Admins. in consort, or the equivalent, to adopt a handicapped child and show it love, and to never post here again until you had completed the adoption process and were tending the child. Seems entirely reasonable: there is this human being in need, and you obviously have the time and resources to debate on the SDMB. So get out there and do it!
Analogies are fun, but they do have their shortcomings.
My stance is that the woman has but one moral choice available to her, but that it is her choice and not our right to mandate it of her. I can respect your seeing otherwise, but either the “pro-abortion” or pro-life stances are placing demands on another human being – in one case, that it give up its life to avoid inconveniencing another, in the other, that she devote her life to the nurture of another. It has been my experience that any woman discovering she is pregnant thinks long and hard, and prays if she has any feeling that God might be there, before making a decision about whether or not to abort. Which is why I get angry about the straw woman who casually chooses to have an abortion. I respect the pro-life stance but feel it is making a legal demand on others improperly. I respect the usual pro-choice stance but feel that it does not in general give proper weight to the rights of the unborn fetus. And I take the pro-choice stance I do because it puts the onus where it belongs.
Mr. Carp,
well yes the society could compell me to care for a handicap child, pay or one thru taxes, or send me off to fight a war and die for my country. I might not agree but I would do whatever I could to change it (society). That is my question with the abortion issue. Its gotten away from "when can we kill this thing (1st trimester, 45 days,…) " to “its a choice of what I can do with my body”. I used to think it was horrible to kill a fetus, until I had my first child. then the thought of anybody abusing or neglecting such a perfect being was so repulsive that I found abortion to be the better solution. I think if you aren’t 1000% sure you want this baby then stop it right away. I figure it would have to help the epidemic of child abuse/abandonment/neglect that in our society.
my fear is that abortion will become too “acceptable” and convenience will become a major reason. Thats why I try to remind everyone that its killing.
Of course we do look to them, rightly or wrong, for judicial review
Not really relevant to a discussion of LEGAL rights, restrictions or regulations. The SDMB is a voluntary, private organization that can and does make up its own rules. We’re discussing PUBLIC policy, last time I checked.
Well now I’m confused…you admit that we ARE talking a “human being” here? What was the pre-mitosis fertilized ovum that you mentioned earlier…a red herring?
Well there have been several examples on these very boards that run counter to that (look up Stoid’s feelings, for example). That being said, I DO believe that it IS a difficult life event for all women…and that MOST women do not act in a casual matter. Anybody who suggests otherwise (and really, I haven’t seen anybody in this thread act this way) is an incompassionate lout.
Not a “straw woman” (read non-existent…since there are a RARE number of women who seem to act casually that). But again, I haven’t seen anybody in this thread, or any of the more informed pro lifers (read JThunder, Gomez, Bob Cos, Jubilation T Cornpone et al) make that assertion (that women approach abortion in a casual manner)
How do you apply your view to politics?
Do you generally vote pro-choice or pro-life?
A question occurs to me: If we relegate the anti-abortion half of the anti-abortion/pro-choice stance to the realm of the purely personal, and extend the pro-choice half of the stance to the realm of public policy, are we not – in effect – determining a course of action that is right, and must be obeyed?
It seems to me that what I have just described is – de facto – a pro-choice position: Pro-lifers can have whatever views they want about hypothetical abortions. But when it comes to the real ones, their arguments and positions must necessarily retreat into practical non-existence in the interest of toleration.
I don’t know if that’s how you handle the position or not, Polycarp. It’s just a question that occurs to me.
I guess my own answer to whether or not a moral person can support abortion would be this:
The decision to support abortion – and even the decision to have an abortion – does not necessarily make a person an immoral person. Decent, moral, humane people do sometimes hold positions – and commit acts – that are not moral.
Nevertheless, abortion itself represents the destruction of distinct, functioning human life, without regard for the rights of the life destroyed, and is therefore an immoral act. I fully recognize that this contention is contested territory, but this represents the view that has been most persuasively presented to me.
In spite of what I understand to be the immorality of abortion, that immorality not only does not represent a warrant to draw conclusions about the overall moral acceptability of individuals, but also does not represent a warrant for the mistreatment of anyone.
What I understand to be the immorality of abortion constrains me to act – legally and with humility – in the interest of curtailing the practice, if not eliminating it outright. In a perfect world, this curtailing or eliminating would take place because better options were readily available and universally preferable.
I offer my opinion on this for the following reasons:
-
It hardly seems fair for me to come on here and ask questions if I’m not going to tip my hand on the matter myself.
-
I’m really not here to demonize or belittle anyone, and I hope that by offering my opinion, I will make it clear that I come to this question with malice toward none.
-
I’m more concerned about posting on this very interesting topic than I have been about anything else since I’ve been coming to SDMB. If you believe in God around here, the worst thing you’ll ever get told is that you’re very very stupid. But sometimes, if you say you’re pro-life in the wrong way, you can get pigeonholed in much worse places.
So…Now I’ve said my bit. Sorry for the long post. I’m sure I have repeated what others have already said better. Mostly, I’m just interested to hear what Polycarp has to say.
Best,
–B
Mr. Billy-
Thanks for your insights on the OP. I’ve been bothered by the fact that I have not answered the OP directly, even though I’ve participated in tangental discussions in the thread.
For some reason, I’ve had a hard time articulating my feelings in direct response to the OP.
Now I can weasle out and say “ditto” to your post
Mr. Billy, who has a gift for cutting to the proverbial chase:
My version would be:
What I understand to be the immorality of restricting access to abortion constrains me to act – legally for so long as abortion remains legal and relatively unimpeded – in the interest of making the practice accessible and affordable everywhere. In a perfect world, it would not be an issue, because, as my esteemed colleague Mr. Billy says, better options would effectively eliminate nearly all nonvolitional pregnancy, and the remaining rare cases would be addressed in complete privacy.
Here’s to those better options!
Mr. Billy,
I learned long time ago that if you aren’t being called stupid then you aren’t doing some right. At least on SDMB. So speak your mind,duck and cover.
Mr. Billy,
I learned long time ago that if you aren’t being called stupid then you aren’t doing some right. At least on SDMB. So speak your mind,duck and cover.
Ah, the justinh variation of the Galileo Gambit.
Somebody mention my name?
Simply confirming the fact that no, I did not think long and hard, I did not pray, I did not hesitate. For me, in my life, the question of bringing it to term was never seriously considered, never considered at all. For a moment.
And the only emotional distress I experienced had to do with the physical process itself, which sucked majorly. If it had been no more painful than a pap smear, it wouldn’t have fazed me at all.
However, I’d just like to say that between me and my best bud, there is a large divergence of opinion about what is acceptable when it comes to abortion. She is a mother of two children whom she adores, I am a mother of none who had my tubes tied. She thinks all abortion should be legal right up to the point of birth, which I find appalling. (Her reasoning is we must fight the slippery slope from an extreme position or we will lose all our rights.) I, on the other hand, have a real problem with late abortions. I think if you are going to get an abortion for non-medical reasons, you need to do it as early as possible. Past a certain point it is just too late, this isn’t a fetus, it’s a baby. I tend to put that line at around 5-6 months. But I would prefer to see all abortions performed in the first trimester.
Shows ta go ya…
stoid
I can think of at least one person who would disagree with this analysis. Whether or not he will partake of this discussion, I don’t know. Let it be said instead, then, that here are moral constructs which find that there is always a moral action to be taken. In fact, it can be said that that is the point of morality: to aid in the decision process for actions, if not determining them outright.
I can say that, for myself, there is no such thing as a “right to life.” I find that the idea entails so many moral dilemmas that it can only serve to undermine the decision process and to muddy the waters of already sketchy morality.
Then I am lost: what exactly is morality for then? Why bother with moral valuations if they serve no real-world purpose?