Focused Abortion Discussion (this one's for you Anti Pro)

[Morgan]

Smartass

However, it probably won’t be much help if you want to use it to outlaw abortion, unless you can convince everyone else you are right.

Umm. Smartass…I’m pro-choice. I have no desire to outlaw abortion.

It appears that I am in the minority of one. Apparently, no other pro-choicer will accept a fetus as a living human being. It must be so difficult to accept that someone who believes that a fetus is a living human can also be pro-choice that everyone thinks I am really anti-abortion.

How does the quote go? Something like “Life is nasty, brutish and short.” People perform horrible atrocities on one another every second of every day. It is an acceptable reaction to an atrocity to “murder” someone. As I suggested in my OP, when a “murder” is in reaction to certain acts, it is no longer called “murder,” but instead it becomes a “justifiable homicide.”

I was looking for a discussion between people who agree that an abortion is a homicide, but disagree as to when it is justifiable. Apparently, however, everyone who believes an abortion is homicide also believes that it is never justifiable. I am the only person who believes differently. I guess it will be a very boring conversation.

[Morgan]

Nurlman

Let’s take a simple example first. My best understanding of the IUD is that it somehow (no one knows quite how) prevents a fertilized egg from attaching to the uterus. Are you prepared to argue-- without reference to religious or other arguments against the general use of birth control-- that the use of an IUD constitutes a morally culpable killing of a living embryo?

The question is difficult because there is no certainty that the embryo would have attached itself to the uterus. Not all fertilized eggs have the potential to become human beings. My understanding is that even if the embryo were to attach itself, miscarriages are very common in the first two weeks, and many women don’t even know they were pregnant by the time they get their periods.

So, in the IUD example, causation would be a very difficult hurdle. Yes, a 6 week pregnant woman can also miscarry, but there is a much greater chance that a woman who has been pregnant for 6 weeks will carry a baby to term than a women who just has a fertilized egg.

Hypothetically, if science were to progress to the point where you can say with certainty that a certain fertilized egg would have become a baby “but for” (a legal phrase) the IUD, then yes I believe it would qualify as homicide. Since this post has gotten long, let me just say in a conclusory fashion that I also belive it is justifiable.

[sqweels]

DEFINE “HUMAN BEING”.

[Nurlman]

if science were to progress to the point where you can say with certainty that a certain fertilized egg would have become a baby “but for”(a legal phrase) the IUD, then yes I believe it would qualify as homicide.

Well, we have to take as a given that, implanted in the uterus or not, the fetilized egg is a “life.” That’s the underlying assumption in the debate: “life begins at conception.” Since we’ve articifically used that as a starting point, what science does or doesn’t know is irrelevant. Under the assumptions we’re making here, a fertilized egg that doesn’t implant in the uterus for natural reasons is as much a “dead baby” as one that doesn’t implant because of an IUD or one that does implant and is surgically aborted at 24 weeks.

But now that your purpose in this thread has been clarified by your recent post-- you sort of helped steer it off couse with your 5-10-2000 1:15 pm post about aborting people in comas-- I think you’re preaching to the choir.

If you insist that we agree that life begins at conception, then every abortion is, by definition, a homicide. Debating whether that homicide is “justifiable” with pro-choicers is going to simply yield people who say that whatever reason the mother has in mind for having the abortion is sufficient justification for the “homicide.”

Put another way, the only new element you’ve added to the debate is “what if you considered the thing to be a ‘living human’ rather than just a ‘fetus’?” For most pro-choice people, the debate about whether the fetus is “alive” or not is semantics. Their basic belief is that until some not-well-defined point near the time of viability, the mother has the right to decide when she will and when she will not gestate a [fetus | baby | living human | junior person | whatever] inside her womb.

Obviously, a fetus has characteristics of a living creature, and no one disputes that, left unchecked, it will grow into a baby. The upshot is, you’re probably not going to have many people say “I’m pro-choice if it’s called a fetus but pro-life if it’s called a baby.”

[Whack-a-Mole]

I was looking for a discussion between people who agree that an abortion is a homicide, but disagree as to when it is justifiable. Apparently, however, everyone who believes an abortion is homicide also believes that it is never justifiable. I am the only person who believes differently. I guess it will be a very boring conversation.

Maybe it’s a problem of semantics. While Morgan may not be the only person in the world who feels this way he is the first one I’ve heard of.

Justifiable homicide doesn’t even cover mercy killings and that’s about as close as justifiable homicide will ever get to the abortion debate (which in my view still makes it light years away).

To suppose the zygote/fetus is alive in the same sense as a person who has already been born and then to suppose there are circumstances in which it is justifiable to kill said person is abhorrent. Essentially you are condoning murder from where you stand in certain circumstances…maybe cloaked in a blanket of eugenics. Our society simply does not kill newborns because they are deformed or retarded or because the mother is financially and/or emotionally unable to take care of the child. If these reasons don’t suffice as justifications what possibly could? The writer of the OP says he/she holds this opinion but hasn’t ventured any of the justificcations that works for him/her.

The crux of the whole debate between pro-choice and pro-life sides is a disagreement on when life really begins. If I accepted the restriction (for the sake of this argument) in the OP that life begins at conception then I have to argue for moral grounds under which murder is acceptable. I don’t think it can be done in this situation so yes…

…this probably will turn out to be a boring conversation.

[AHunter3]

Morgan:

I was looking for a discussion between people who agree that an abortion is a homicide, but disagree as to when
it is justifiable. Apparently, however, everyone who believes an abortion is homicide also believes that it is never
justifiable. I am the only person who believes differently. I guess it will be a very boring conversation.

No, I’m on board with that. Fetuses and embryos are human, and alive, and abortion is the killing of them. This act may under some circumstances be murder (but always murder with an asterisk if performed through the authority of the mother; no matter how callous she is about it or how trivial her reasons for aborting, it is also always simultaneously something she is doing to her own body, which makes it different from other murders even when it is murder).

It is most certainly not always murder.

Meanwhile, I take the radical pro-choice position that no one other than the pregnant person herself is in a good position to evaluate whether or not it is murder, and therefore even though sometimes it is murder to abort, it should be a process not interfered with by others.

I think there is room for interesting debate and discussion about “when do you think it’s murderous?”, but it is a politically risky discussion to undertake as long as there are so many people trying to make them categorically illegal and punishable by law. I’d be a lot more comfortable having such a discussion if abortion were free and available to any woman who had decided that for her under her circumstances it is not murder and wished to avail herself of abortion services.

[Whack-a-Mole]

Ok…

We can have a discussion on what constitutes murder. It is, afterall, a society that defines its laws. In some Arab countries it is legal (or they get very minimal punishment) if they kill their wives under certain circumstances. Clearly there’s different strokes for different folks.

Meanwhile, I take the radical pro-choice position that no one other than the pregnant person herself is in a good position to evaluate whether or not it is murder, and therefore even though sometimes it is murder to abort, it should be a process not interfered with by others.

I have a problem with that statement. Only society as a whole can determine what is right and wrong for its members by instituting laws. Never is a person allowed to determine for themself when a murder has been committed. Either the law says you did it or the law says you didn’t do it. If you maintain that aborting a fetus at any time after conception is murder then the mother and possibly the doctor should be prosecuted. By definition murder is “the crime of unlawfully killing a person especially with malice aforethought” [Webster]. The doctor and mother can try and convince the court that what they did was justifiable.

One last thought. I still haven’t seen anyone who agrees with the OP actually try and list and defend a position when abortion is justifiable AND accepting that abortion IS murder under all circumstances. That includes the person who wrote the OP.

[Morgan]

Nurlman

For most pro-choice people, the debate about whether the fetus is “alive” or not is semantics. Their basic belief is that until some not-well-defined point near the time of viability, the mother has the right to decide when she will and when she will not gestate a [fetus | baby | living human | junior person | whatever] inside her womb.

Isn’t this a ridiculous thing to believe? If this is truly the belief of some pro-choicers, then they are intellectually corrupt. There are so many problems with it, I feel like a mosquito at a nudist colony – I don’t know where to begin. Until being a human being that is alive can be precisely defined and inclusive of all situations, mistakes will necessarilly occur. Are these types of mistakes acceptible losses?

Debating whether that homicide is “justifiable” with pro-choicers is going to simply yield people who say that whatever reason the mother has in mind for having the abortion is sufficient justification for the “homicide.”

I was hoping for a variety of opinions. Maybe someone who believes in the absolute right to abortions would say that the discomfort of even 30 seconds of pregnancy will outweigh the harm of a (very) late term abortion. Others might say that at least 4 months of discomfort is needed before the balance tips. Maybe others would say it takes rape or incest and some emotional problem connected to the child.

[Morgan]

Jeff_42 said

To suppose the zygote/fetus is alive in the same sense as a person who has already been born and then to suppose there are circumstances in which it is justifiable to kill said person is abhorrent.

So dropping the bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki was abhorrent and without any justification? The death penalty is always a bad idea because, no matter what checks are built into the system, there is always a chance that an innocent person might be killed? War, for any reason in any circumstances, is abhorrent?

Grow up. If I am the only person who is intellectually honest enough to realize that abortion is, in fact, the taking of a human life, yet still believe that it can be justified, then so be it.

I still haven’t seen anyone who agrees with the OP actually try and list and defend a position when abortion is justifiable AND accepting that abortion IS murder under all circumstances. That includes the person who wrote the OP.

Actually, I tend to agree generally with society, although I put the question in the context of wieghing the harm (a human death) against the benefit. Society obviously believes that the following “equation” is true:

[emotional burden of giving birth to an unwanted child] + [forcing a woman to be an incubator for 3-6 months (depending on the state)] is greater than [life of a human]

Since abortion is not restricted to families which cannot afford an additional child, [financial hardship] is obviously not a factor. Society also believes:

[emotional burden of a deformed child] is greater than [life of a deformed human]

No time component here because (I think) this is one of the justifications of late-term abortions. Similarly

[emotional burden of a child from incest or rape] is greater than [life of a human]

It should be noted that society also believes:
[emotional burden of giving birth to an unwanted child] + [forcing a woman to be an incubator for less than 3-6 months (depending on the state)] is LESS than [life of a human].

If people were intellectually honest with their reasons for being pro-choice, then maybe things like [specific emotional considerations (e.g., the mother is 13 or not sane)], [financial hardship] and [choice of the father] should also be put into the equation. But, as long as we limit ourselves to some fuzzy line between a “human being that is alive” and a “fetus” then how can other factors, ever be included?

[Nurlman]

Isn’t this a ridiculous thing to believe? If this is truly the belief of some pro-choicers, then they are intellectually corrupt. . . . Until being a human being that is alive can be precisely defined and inclusive of all situations, mistakes will necessarilly occur. Are these types of mistakes acceptible losses?

Huh? I’m not quite sure what you mean with this, but I have a feeling I’ve already handed you that victory. By assuming that life begins at conception, I’m willing to admit that the little human being in my womb is already “alive” before I’m done smoking my post-coital cigarette. But the little bugger also happens to be a trespasser on my property, and I have the right to kick him out if I want.

However, I suspect what you’re referring to in the quote above is when viability occurs. Yes, there is no hard and fast point at which a fetus suddenly becomes viable outside the womb, and yes, it is conceivable that a viable fetus might actually be aborted once in a while. But that is a consequence of the uncertainty of medical science, and one that we deal with on a daily basis. Doctors routinely pull the plug on people who they consider to be brain dead, risking the possibility that a diagnosis of irreversible brain death might be incorrect. We as a society simply accept a certain degree of uncertainty in medical matters, and the viability question is simply an aspect of that.

As for the “intellectually corrupt” part, I don’t see it. Where is the intellectual corruption in the belief that a woman is entitled to decide what she will and what she will not allow to grow inside her body? The argument that “it’s a human being” doesn’t cut it: your whole premise of “justifiable homicide” implicity entails a balancing of the relative rights of the mother and child. How is it intellectually dishonest for me to presume that the mother has a greater set of rights than the child does?

I was hoping for a variety of opinions. Maybe someone who believes in the absolute right to abortions would say that the discomfort of even 30 seconds of pregnancy will outweigh the harm of a (very) late term abortion. Others might say that at least 4 months of discomfort is needed before the balance tips. Maybe others would say it takes rape or incest and some emotional problem connected to the child.

Oh, I see, you were getting to that. So basically, all you’re looking for are pre-existing beliefs people have about when abortions should be allowed. The initial assumption that “life begins at conception” doesn’t really factor in to this anymore.

Which was my initial point-- the “when does life begin” question doesn’t really mean anything if you’re going to say “it begins at conception, but there can still be justifications for killing it.” Pro-life people already believe life begins at conception and that there are no legitimate justifications for aborting a living fetus. Pro-choice people intellectually can accept that the fetus is a living entity, but find that the wishes of the mother are more important than the preservation of the fetus’ life. I don’t know any pro-choice people who scrutinize the particular reasons for the mother’s decision before saying that she should or should not have an abortion for the reasons stated.

[Satan]

By assuming that life begins at conception, I’m willing to admit that the little human being in my womb is already “alive” before I’m done smoking my post-coital cigarette. But the little bugger also happens to be a trespasser on my property, and I have the right to kick him out if I want.

Well, that has to be the simplest way of dealing with that particular argument.

The only answer a pro-lifer could possibly say would be, “Would you kill a tresspasser in your house?” to which you could respond, “If the tresspasser cannot live unless it is tresspassing on my property, how am I obligated to let it stay there until it can?”

So thank you for a very clear and succinct point which made me smile, and think. I plan on stealing it for my own ways, you know…

The best I could come up with (and it’s still a nice retort) is that you probably don’t want to assume that a zygote is a human being from the moment of conception if you are religious.

Since upwards of 66% of all pregnancies end due to the zygote not attatching itself to the uterine wall (but after fertilization), and then you add on the rest of the natural miscarriages that happen later in term, and our loving God is the most prolific abortionist ever.

You don’t think anyone is going to try and shoot Him like they do other abortionists, do you?

---

Yer pal,
Satan

TIME ELAPSED SINCE I QUIT SMOKING:
One month, two days, 21 hours, 13 minutes and 10 seconds.
1315 cigarettes not smoked, saving $164.42.
Life saved: 4 days, 13 hours, 35 minutes.

[Morgan]

Satan said:

The only answer a pro-lifer could possibly say would be, “Would you kill a tresspasser in your house?” to which you could respond, “If the tresspasser cannot live unless it is tresspassing on my property, how am I obligated to let it stay there until it can?”

You are forgetting one thing: an invitee is, by definition, not a trespasser.

Wiggum: And once a stranger enters your house, anything you do to them is nice [wink] and legal.
Homer: Oh Flanders…won’t you join me in my kitchen?
Wiggum: Uh, it doesn’t work if you invite 'em.
Flanders: Hidely hey!
Homer: Go home.
Flanders: Doodely doo!

[Whack-a-Mole]

Since upwards of 66% of all pregnancies end due to the zygote not attatching itself to the uterine wall (but after fertilization), and then you add on the rest of the natural miscarriages that happen later in term, and our loving God is the most prolific abortionist ever.

Hey, if you read history you realize God is one of the leading causes of death. Has been for thousands of years! – George Carlin
Morgan:

How you can justify inconvenience with murder is beyond me. Sure war is abhorrent and we can start a whole other thread on that issue alone. Some maintain killing is wrong. Period. End of story. Even if someone is trying to kill you.

Personally I have no trouble with the idea of killing someone who presents an immediate and lethal threat. I know of no other legal justification in this country for one person to kill another (war and the death penalty are society asking that hose things be done…somewhat a different issue also good for another thread). The quote in Satan’s post above is snappy but I hate to break it to you. You cannot legally shoot (or kill) a trespasser. You’re supposed to call the cops and have them removed.

As far as the list Morgan made every one of those items listed are inconveniences to another person. None of them rise to the level of justifying murder unless you somehow hold the zygote/fetus as a significantly lesser and pretty much inconsequential being with basically no rights of its own.

Or you can view the zygote/fetus as a non-entity at that point making the question of murder moot.

[Morgan]

Jeff_42 said:

The quote in Satan’s post above is snappy but I hate to break it to you. You cannot legally shoot (or kill) a trespasser. You’re supposed to call the cops and have them removed.

Actually, it depends on the state.

In Louisiana I remember a case where someone was legally able to kill a trick-or-treater on Holloween. They are pretty much given carte blanche to kill trespassers. In other states deadly force is limited to when you have a reasonable belief that a felony will be committed. In yet others, the trespasser must actually have an intent to commit a felony.

[Morgan]

So how many people can say that they have had BOTH pro-lifers and pro-choicers disagree with them?
Jeff_42 said:

How you can justify inconvenience with murder is beyond me.

“Inconvenience” is a nice blanket term, isn’t it? Yes, it would be an inconvenience to have someone kill me and my family. It would be an inconvenience if I were forced to give up a lung so that someone else may breath. It would all be very inconvenient.

Yes, I do believe it would be terribly inconvenient if a woman were to loose control of her body for six months and be forced to act as an incubator for a child which she does not want. Yes, the inconvenience would justify homicide.

[Satan]

The quote in Satan’s post above is snappy but I hate to break it to you. You cannot legally shoot (or kill) a trespasser. You’re supposed to call the cops and have them removed.

Hey - the tresspasser is simply removed! The tresspasser cannot live unless it is no longer tresspassing on your property? I’d say that’s tough noogies for the tresspasser!

Nobody invited this tresspasser. Oh sure, maybe some actions you did made the tresspasser think that the welcome matt was out, but even with that little misunderstanding, it is still an unwanted intruder who, as much of a pain as it is now, will become a HUGE PAIN after several months. I mean, it’ll even ask you to feed it and wipe it’s ass! The nerve!

So, remove that intruder then! That’s all that the woman is doing, you see. Calling the cops to remove something tresspassing without permission is exactly what they are doing.

Is it her fault that once it is removed, it is exposed for the blood clot-sized of congealing tissue and blood that it really is? And that it isn’t viable, or very human if the only way it can be alive is to leech off of someone who does not want it then, or later?

Imagine how full the cemetaries will be when all victims of what I mentioned above got proper burials. Quick, drop that dot.com stock portfolio and invest in your local mortuary - you’ll be in for a killing!! Oh, and make sure that you look into land as well for cemetaries, since you can’t cremate a puddle, can you?

---

Yer pal,
Satan

TIME ELAPSED SINCE I QUIT SMOKING:
One month, three days, 2 hours, 8 minutes and 26 seconds.
1323 cigarettes not smoked, saving $165.44.
Life saved: 4 days, 14 hours, 15 minutes.

[Anti_Pro]

Morgan, I’m only sorry that I’ve not time to stop and discuss your interesting debate, because it actually IS one for a change. I’m dirty from pressure washing my driveway, and I was checking on some threads that had been answered when I saw your rather eye catching thread title.

Don’t give up on me. I’ll be back tomorrow. It’s genuinely a thought provoking argument that you’ve posed. I promise to give a great deal of consideration to the points that have already been made.

I’m anti-abortion, not anti people who are for it, let’s make that clear from the outset, okay? I can disagree with you without becoming disagreeable.

See you tomorrow. I’ll be cleaner then!

Judy

[Morgan]

I was wondering where you were, Anti Pro. Glad to hear you will be joining us.

[Smartass]

Morgan:

Umm. Smartass…I’m pro-choice. I have no desire to outlaw abortion.

It appears that I am in the minority of one. Apparently, no other pro-choicer will accept a fetus as a living human being. It must be so difficult to accept that someone who believes that a fetus is a living human can also be pro-choice that everyone thinks I am really anti-abortion…

I was looking for a discussion between people who agree that an abortion is a homicide, but disagree as to when it is justifiable.

I indeed misunderstood your position. I apologize.

However, I think you are making far more assumptions than you realize:

-Even acknowledging it is human and alive doesn’t necessarily imply that it is a separate human being from the mother. A cancerous tumor is alive and made of human tissue, but we generally view it as an unwanted invader that is siphoning nutrients from the host. This could also be said of a fetus. Is the difference one of potential? Or is it a difference of intelligence? For some people, it is the theoretical existence of a soul. I take it that you are positing that, from the moment the sperm and egg unite, that this is a separate living human.
-If it is a separate living human, is it therefore entitled to the rights that we guarantee to born citizens (Life, liberty, etc.) or are these rights only conveyed at birth? I take it that you are assuming it does possess these rights, but they are superceded by the rights of the mother. To what degree do the mother’s rights have to be infringed to justify depriving the child of its most basic right?
-Are you arguing that it is justifiable homicide to abort a baby that has reached the age of being able to live on its own outside the womb? Under what circumstances?
-Are you arguing that it is justifiable to abort any baby that is not capable of living on its own, with or without reason?

Here’s a twist on it that you may not have considered:
I personally think that abortion is a horrid act. I cannot imagine myself ever encouraging anyone to do such a thing, unless the circumstances were truly life or death. However, this is based on my own personal feelings of right and wrong and not on any particular standard that I could ever explain or justify. I cannot define what separates human cells from an actual human being. The fact that I have an opinion on the matter does not keep me from recognizing that reasonable people can disagree about this. Also, the decision to carry or not carry a fetus to term is immensely personal for the mother. Lastly, outlawing abortions accomplishes no purpose–it doesn’t prevent abortions, it just makes them more dangerous for the mother.

Given all this, I am pro-choice. The fact that you want to grant, for the purpose of debate, that the fetus is a living human being, seems–to me–to sidestep the key issue. The fact that we cannot establish in any provable way whether a fetus is a living, separate human being is the reason that we cannot meaningfully discuss whether or not killing it is murder, and it is also the reason that I think that society as a whole has no business interfering in one person’s decision to abort or not to abort.

-VM

[Morgan]

Smartass,

Abortion, like all other things, is a balance of benefit versus harm. As I mentioned before, I believe it is intellectually corrupt to simply write off half of the equation by dismissing an unborn baby as “not a living human being.” There IS a harm.

In my opinion, the following are some factors that should probably be considered when making abortion legislation:

1. The societal price of lessing the value of a human life
2. The societal price of having one less citizen
3. The societal benefit of not allowing the government to intrude into our most personal affairs
4. The societal benefit of not creating a situation where dangerous and illegal abortions are performed.
5. The price to the unborn baby of having its life terminated**
6. The emotional and phisical benefit to the mother of not being forced to go though pregnancy (this factor will, of course, change depending upon how far the woman is into her pregnancy)
7. The emotional benefit to the mother of not being forced to give birth to a child she does not want.
8. The emotional benefit/price to the father of (a) being forced to father a child he does not want or (b) loosing the oportunity to be a father to his child. (NOTE: this factor corresponds to #7 only. The mother is also considered in #6, to which the father has no corresponding price/benefit)
9. The financial benefit to the mother of not being forced to go through pregnancy and support a child. (This is dependant on the facts of the particular case and the resources available to the mother.)
   **NOTE: I might be willing to say that this factor incrementally changes with how much the unborn baby is reacting to outside stimuli. At 9 months, the baby clearly has the ability to react to birth and cry. At 6 months, the baby may kick if you tap on the mother’s stomach. Heck, at a 12 week sonogram I remember noticing the baby dancing around and reacting to various stimuli. I think it was also about that time that my wife would tell me that the baby would start to react to different foods she ate.