Dogface, by definition abortion applies to a fetus or other prenatal stages. Do you even know how to contribute to a discussion?
Dogface not that your comment desreves a reply but …
If they can be shown to have no upper brain function then their death would not be the death of a Human Being by my personal deffinition. They could not in anyway think. And if such a thing as a soul exists, then it would be trapped without senses in an unconsciou state within the higher-brainless being and should be released by killing the vessel.
Sorry, this OP almost lost me by insisting on use of the term “pro-abortion”. I know of no one who uses that, or would agree with the option that “Abortion is morally right.” Can the OP be restated in terms that suggest the poster still understands positions he does not hold?
Well, mark me down into #1, I think Randy did a nice job of making the 4 categories a bit more explicit.
A coupled of points that struck me:
Valgard you think “pro-abortion” is too broad a brushstroke but think “pro-choice” isn’t? That barely makes sense to me. Pro-choice is such a vague label as to be almost meaningless. In the context of the abortion debate, the word choice was appropriated by one side as purely political tool. It’s much nicer to say “I support a woman’s right to choose” (what, her socks?) than it is to say “I support a woman’s right to have an abortion.” For this same reason, abortion access supporters (tried to pick a more neutral term) label their opponents “anti-choice.” Pro-Life is admittedly just as silly in the same context. I think the OP intentionally picked his terms as a way to remove the inherent polical bent in terms like “pro-choice” and “pro-life”
Another thing that struck me is the rationalization that because fetuses aren’t sentient, it’s OK to kill them. Would that same logic excuse a person killing their dog because they no longer wanted to feed it? That came out a bit more flippant than I intended it, but I hope everyone gets what I’m saying.
Finally, I assume that for the purposes of this discussion, we are talking only about elective abortion. Situations that call for people to choose between their own survival and anothers are such a strange and horrifying case that I think anyone who would presume to impose their own opinion on someone faced with such a choice is insensitive, to say the least.
That said, my personal feeling is that it is morally dubious to consider abortion as a form of birth control used to excuse a lack of proper consideration for the responsibility that accompanies the freedom to have sex when and with whom you please.
Dogs aren’t sentient?
“Sentient” means having the ability to experience the environment through perception and sensation. All animals with some form of nervous system and sensory organs possess sentience. A dog would certainly possess a fairly high degree of sentience.
I know what the dictionary definition of sentient is, and by that definition, many fetuses would qualify as well as they can hear, touch, etc.
I was using the example as a counterpoint to the one raised ealier about how fetuses cannot know that they are about to die and cannot fear their own imminent death. By that definition, neither can a dog.
I admit is is a somewhat clumsly analogy, but I just wanted to point out that a fetus is more than a block of plastic or a lump of soil, it is at the very least something akin to a lower animal (in my opinion it is quite a bit more, but that’s not entirely germane)
Call me a 3.5, simply because I think abortion is a flat-out atrocity, while the death penalty… troubles me, solely because no government is perfect, and the risk of executing the innocent is always there.
I don’t feel the least bit sorry that Ted Bundy was executed. I can’t fathom why anyone would. When the scum who dragged James Byrd to his death go to the gurney, mine will be the dryest eyes in the state of Texas. There’s no good argument for keeping them alive, and I’ll laugh in the face of anyone who tries to tell me otherwise.
Unfortunately, not everyone arrested is as unquestionably guilty as Ted Bundy. So, while I have absolutely no moral compunctions about killing murderers, I’m far from serene about the whole process. And I wish some of my fellow conservatives (the types who don’t trust the government to deliver the mail, run the schools, or sweep the streets) weren’t so blase about giving the government the ultimate power.
Count me as against the death penalty - it’s impossible to apologise to a dead person - but undecided (literally) about abortion. Part of me is strongly pro abortion, on scientific and educational grounds, but the other part is against precisely because of those (e.g. I studied Latin and [Ancient] Greek and the standard method of birth control in Ancient Greece was to leave the infant for the wolves - cue Oedipus etc).
It’s worth noting that the UK has a seperate offence of infanticide (uniquely by the mother against her offspring).
As a Christian, I have no problem with killing (the Commandmant is Thou Shalt Not Murder, not Kill) [No cite, but 20 years ago I had it from the Greek]. And a foetus is by definition unable to survive outside the womb without unnatural assistance.
Against that is the question, ‘What might that embryo/foetus become?’ The probability is that the child will not prove to be anything special (and thus, Darwinisticly, an insignificant loss) but what if it were otherwise?
I even have trouble with a continuing pregnancy being a danger to the mother. Historically, childbirth was one of the most dangerous things about being a woman. Should the life of the unborn child come ahead of that of the mother? After all, can it not be said that (Darwinistically) the mother has served her biological function in bearing a new life and is therefore expendable?
And what about genes? Do we engage in eugenics? Is it actually wrong to artifically assist birth? Are we weakening the human gene pool?
For the record, if modern medicine did not exist, I would probably not be alive.
It’s a difficult question and I have yet to decide.
Racekarl -
You question me as to why I think “pro-abortion” is a rather broad definition and “pro-choice” isn’t. The OP seems to imply that he feels that “pro-abortion” is an accurate description of people who don’t have a moral dilemma with abortion and that’s what I disagree with.
The implication that because I think abortion is not morally wrong I must therefore be in FAVOR of people having abortions is simply incorrect and based on the admittedly limited set of people I have dealt with in my life it’s not an accurate description overall.
I do however feel quite strongly that it is morally wrong for me to be the one who decides whether a woman can or cannot have an abortion. “Pro-choice” means that I support the right of a woman to choose whether or not to terminate her pregnancy. “Pro-choice” is highly descriptive and it’s quite accurate, I really don’t see where the room for confusion is.
Going back to my self-defense example, I do not think that killing in self-defense is morally wrong (it’s not pleasant or easy or whatever but it isn’t WRONG). Would you agree that characterizing that attitude as “pro-killing” would be overbroad?
Oh, and I completely agree that people who see abortion as some sort of simple birth control because they can’t be bothered to take some responsibility for themselves and others are just contemptible.
Pro-choice is a political term to be sure, but again, pro-abortion isn’t accurate. Many pro-choicers wouldn’t even get abortions themselves, they just support the right of others to do so if they choose. The slightly longer explanation you gave about it being pro-access to abortion is more accurate than pro-abortion and I can see an argument about it being more objective. Although it’s usually a given what ‘pro-choice’ is in reference to. 
It’s separate from a father killing his offspring, you mean?
That’s kind of a strange thing to say, and in my opinion arguing that abortion should be legal to improve the genepool is a little sick. James Watson, he of “…and Crick,” is on record as saying he favors aggressive genetic manipulation so we no longer have ugly or stupid people. (Or disabled people, one might imagine.) And that’s almost a quote. The man’s become a nut, and to me, arguments about weeding out weaker genes are only a small step away from Nazi-esque ‘elimination of the impure.’ I’m not calling anyone a Nazi, but the argument makes me totally uncomfortable - let alone practical questions like who would make those calls.
I’m not a geneticist, but it seems to me the ‘weak genes’ argument is a bit off-base anyway. Nature still works the way it always has: those with ‘strong’ enough genes to survive to reproduce, do. Those who are unable to survive don’t. Are a greater number of people who wouldn’t have survived earlier in history surviving today? Yes, but that’s exactly the point: the goal is the endurance of the species, more people living and reproducing keeps the species going.
Valgard and Marley,
To be sure I was not suggesting we use the phrase “pro-abortion” and it’s understandable that that turn of phrase seems a bit melodramatic, but my point is that using “pro-choice” as the preferred term in this logical debate chafes me as well. Mainly because it is a very politically charged term, and the point of the OP was not to debate the politics of abortion and capital punishment, but to discuss the thought process that led people to their positions. I’ll stop beating this horse now
Valgard’s second point is interesting to me as well. So people that are in favor of unrestricted access to abortion: What do you see as the purpose of abortion? What would be your position on some sort of partial ban, excepting cases where it is medically advisable? The idea being to eliminate elective abortions used as birth control. I myself would prefer this sort of situation, but I have little faith that such a system would be easily workable given the subjective nature of many medical diagnoses, and the many loopholes and complications inherent in such a system.
Personally I do fully support the use of elective abortions as [one form of] birth control; suitable when an unwanted pregnancy is a fact.
The medical procedure in itself is no small matter, and as any operation it can lead to complications. Add to that the psychological aspect of discarding the thought of this little would-be life, and i do believe it’s safe to say that we need never worry that women would consider abortion just one more alternative to condoms.
Sorry, but as was already pointed out, the support of a possibility of choice is not the support for the action. I support that people are allowed to smoke if they chose so. I sure as heck do not support smoking, least of all in such a fashion where the lives of not just one but numerous other bystanders are threatened against their explicit wish.
Yep. We get that you don’t grasp that while a dog is capable of feeling pain, and several other emotions, an embryo, lacking a functional nervous system, is incapable of doing so.
And I think it is morally dubious, not to say disgusting, to claim a lack of proper consideration for the responsibility that accompanies the freedom to have sex to be involved in a non-negligible number of abortions. That’s equivalent to me asking you when you stopped beating your wife.
As an example, I would suggest you inform yourself on the frequency of domestic violence and make some consideration on how much ‘freedom’ is involved in the sex. Unless, of course, you also consider a wife refusing to sleep with her husband as morally dubious in her dedication to her marriage vows. Given how many husbands abuse their wives and friends their girlfriends, and given how many men who abuse their wives also abuse their children, I suggest thinking a little more before claiming to know just why women ask for an abortion.
Oliver please calm down, this thread is not (yet) in the pit.
As your your first point, well, all you did as far as I can tell is make my point for me. This thread is not about smoking, or anything else you could choose to do. It is about abortion and capital punishment. So by saying you favor the term “pro-choice” and then expanding it to encompass you favoring people’s choice to smoke, you have made my point that it is an inappropriate phrase for the purposes of this thread.
Second, I will not be your strawman with respect to the dog argument. Go back and re-read how I used the analogy and you will see it has nothing to do with feeling pain or being able to see or smell or anything so mundane. This discussion is not soley about abortion, it is about abortion juxtaposed with capital punishement. In that context I believe the dog analogy is apt.
Finally, I cannot follow your second to last paragraph. I’m not trying to be a prick, I honestly don’t understand what you’re trying to get across. I think you’re trying to claim that I was saying ALL or MOST abortions are performed as a lame type of birth control. I said no such thing, as you will see if you kindly re-read my post after the red mist has departed from your eyes.
Randy
Thanks for answering my question honestly. On re-reading my post I see that I editorialized about the question a bit more than perhaps I should have.
Having never been directly involved in an abortion, I cannot really comment on the process and feelings involved etc. However, I believe that those feelings alone may not be enough to prevent abortion becoming seen as a legitimate form of birth control.
For example, in post Soviet Russian republics, abortion is absolutely viewed as a form of birth control, often as the primary one. The abortion rate in 1991 in Russia was 225 abortions per 100 births, whereas in the US it was 25/100. (cite) Abortion techniques are regularly advertised in daily newspapers the way condoms and birth control pills are in the US.
The current attitude towards abortion in post-Soviet republics is a holderover from Soviet days. The USSR is an interesting case. As a holdover from old religious values, birth control was not very socially acceptable and fairly hard to get ahold of. However, the current values allowed for a fair amount of casual sex but very little room for the children that casual sex might produce. For whatever reason, abortion did not really offend the heldover religious values. Thus abortion was a very popular thing.
However, in the United States, birth control is widely available (although there are some cases- like minors- where it is perhaps not as accessable as it could be). I think that the current trends show that abortion will never be popular as a “form of birth control” because is it expensive and unpleasent. The only times I have ever seen serial abortions has been in cases where the person could not obtain birth control- such as a minor without health insurance.
Personally, I have no problem with abortion as birth control- except that it’s perhaps not the smartest method in the world.
I’m not disagreeing with you about politicizing terminology, racekarl, and I’m not trying to turn this into a semantics thing.
Here’s another reason I’d say there’s no contradiction between supporting abortion rights and not supporting the death penalty: capital punishment is just that, punishment. Abortion is not a punishment, though some occasionally make that claim in what I think is an attempt at ludicrously overdramatizing the case.
I’m a bit confused Marley, are you saying that you support capital punishment because it’s a punishment? But your previous sentence said “not supporting.” Or are you saying that it’s OK to kill something for reasons * except* punishment? 
Well neither have I. But I know enough: It is surgery; usually performed under sedation. If I don’t have to I’d rather not go through surgery.
It is also expensive. And I do believe that most people feel a loss when a pregnancy is terminated. And if they don’t; were they suitable parents?
I’ll add one factor to the posts already made on this.
Poverty. Correlates nicely to high abortions rates (if legal and not culturally stigmatized), criminality and drug abuse.
I would consider myself to be a #3.5. Let me get more specific. I am against the death penalty, and against making abortion illegal. (I italicized this to make sure it doesn’t get missed, like the not in an exam question). One can stop the death penalty by changing the laws. However, I don’t think that making abortion illegal is going to stop abortions from happening. It seems to me that the way to stop abortions is to get enough education about sex and birth control (and access to the birth control, all birth control, including “Morning after pills”) that abortions are simply no longer necessary. Having said that, it occurs to me that there are possibilities (including health risks) that could make abortion medically necessary. In those cases, abortion services should still be available.
My thought processes are essentially utilitarian. Let the law stop the killing that it can stop. But I don’t think making abortion illegal will stop abortions from occuring.