Ah, fairness to the children and fairness to society. Is it fair to the children to arbitrarily decide when they stop being a mass of cells and start being children? The arguement of when life begins is unfair at the outset.
Sure, I absolutely agree that the ramifications are great. However I have difficulty understanding an unwanted pregnancy (with exceptions given for rape or molestation of the mentally or physically challenged) in today’s society. Condoms are cheap (free from some services) and available, non-latex alternatives exist for latex allergies, there are a wide variety of shots and other treatments to facillitate birth control. IMHO any woman who “accidently” gets pregnant should also “accidently” lose her exclusivity to the right to choose. Responsibility for birth control is not just the man’s job.
No, the mother should pick up the tab. As I mentioned earlier she had the option to say no and didn’t, she had the option to use birth control and didn’t, she had the option to abort and didn’t. That is three times she said “This child is mine and only mine no matter what anyone else thinks.” That is three times she chose to take full responsibility. How many more times is needed?
I do agree that both parties created the pregnancy and both parties should share responsibility. No, I don’t think it is only the woman’s responsibility for birth control, it is both. Being the responsibility of both I think the woman’s responsibility is understated. I do not support abortion as a form of birth control. I only marginally support abortion as a form of genetic choice. I support abortion in cases of incest and rape and adamantly support abortion in cases risking the mother’s life.
I do support a mother’s right to choose and do, realistically understand the natural limitations on a father’s right to choose (eg. none at all). However the right to choose should come with the responsibility to prevent or the flexibility to accept a broader view of the father’s rights.
I’ve had neighbors, classmates, and co-workers who felt like parasites. You’ve probably felt the same way at one point or another. Would we be justified in terminating their existence on such grounds?
People are NOT allowed to simply “give up custody and parental rights.” Rather, they are allowed to transfer those rights – in other words, to ensure that the child will continue to receive the care that it needs.
One cannot justify abortion by saying, “Oh, well. I’m just giving up my rights, just like parents do when they put a child up for adoption.” That analogy is not even remotely accurate.
…well, it does happen. Every so often. It used to be called ‘going Postal’ but now there’s a more PC phrase for it.
And of course, my answer is going to be no. But I carried those pregnancies and have beautiful healthy children. The cost to me? About 3 months in bed each time, and the emotional distress that went along. Go back far enough in my posting history (early 2003) and you’ll see some of it. Could I have done that without a supportive husband and others? I honestly don’t know. I had people urging me to abort rather than go through that again. And I had more emotional and physical support from kind strangers than I had from my own parents and siblings.
Then I got fixed. Then a year later the Essure procedure failed and I got pregnant again. Want to talk about feeling like you’ve got a parasite? I’d done everything right. Would I have been morally justified in terminating the pregnancy? God yes. Except that I couldn’t bring myself to kill that tiny thing. Then I miscarried anyway. Sad, yes. Relieved, oh yes. Then I got myself fixed again, this time with prejudice and a medical-grade soldering iron.
You can’t kill annoying people, even ones who burden you terribly. Even ones who are a drain on you physically and emotionally. Except that just every so often, somebody does it anyway. (Well, if you count the murders of spouses and children, a couple of times a month across the nation.) But those people tend also to kill themselves in the act, so it’s still not quite the same thing.
What children? You mean the zygote with no consciousness? When did we start imparting human rights on collections of non-sentient cells? Can we poll them to find out what they think is fair? Is it fair to religious organizations to determine what’s fair? Not everyone is religious or believe in souls. The government? In our case, one that is clearly motivated by religious-based morality than on scientific fact. Or the person whose life is affected the most by it?
Further, is it fair for a child to be subjected to starvation and other deprivations for its often short lifespan? What’s fair is in the eye of the beholder apparently. It has nothing to do with responsibility.
So, this is what makes it more fair to the “child” to justify abortion? If your birth mother was raped, it’s fair to dispense with you. But if your birth mother ran out of condoms, it’s not fair.
Agreed. With the existence of Planned Parenthood and other reproductive services, contraception in developed countries is, by and large, accessible and affordable. Not so much in underdeveloped nations.
But tell me that all these birth control choices are 100% effective. They are not. Some are much better than others. Condoms happen to be the least effective contraceptive (if you don’t include the rhythm and other behavioral based controls). So, now do you include birth control failures in your abortion justification of what’s “fair” for the zygote/fetus/child?
The male also had the option to say no. The male also shares the burden of responsibility for birth control. As to the choice to abortion, are you faulting her for choosing not to avail herself of this method while at the same time pining for the rights of her child? You can’t have it both ways. So, we can agree that that the man shares two-thirds of your options, right? How does this absolve him of all responsibility regardless of whether he called for an abortion she wouldn’t have?
And what do you do in the event the mother can’t pick up the tab? Does society force her into an abortion or leave the resulting child to fend for itself? Neither. This is where government welfare services step in to ensure the child is fed, clothed and otherwise cared for with the most basic of necessities. You still haven’t addressed why taxpayers should bear the brunt of supporting grossly underprivileged while a disinterested father essentially gets a pass? Neither party gets a pass; they both share the responsibility of supporting their offspring.
If instead the mother can solely support the child’s basic needs, I can see the inherent problems of the involvement a third party to facilitate a more privileged style of living. Having personally been on both ends of the child support system, I wouldn’t wish that utter mess on anyone, frankly.
With the possible exception that I believe it is inherently and solely the mother’s choice (with the medical advice of her doctor) as to whether to procure an abortion, I agree with you. I know my own personal ethical stance and justifications for abortion and I don’t expect them to be the same as every other woman’s, but I do expect to be the sole arbiter of that choice. I may seek the advice of others (especially my husband), but ultimately I make the decision. And that’s how it should be for all women.
Again, I agree with you. And, for what it’s worth as a woman, I am sympathetic to fathers’ rights and their desire to control their own destinies, as well, in the face of unintended consequences of sex, pregnancy and fatherhood.
I like Carl Sagan’s view that personhood starts when there is significant brain activity, basically when the brain boots for the first time. This seems better than the viability argument that John Mace mentions because it is developmentally, not technologically based. If you use that, and we ever get to the point that we can grow a fertilized egg without it being put into a womb, then we’d be ethically unable to create more fertilized eggs than we will grow into babies, which will cause all sorts of problems - especially for damaged ones.
However, since this is clearly an issue with no real answer, only opinions, and one in which the decision is pretty much going to affect the parties directly involved, it is splendid one for government to keep its mitts off of.
And as far as Malthus’s 5 points of where a human possibly begins, I’d personally choose #2, only because either you believe a human beings begins at the beginning of the merging of chromosomes, or that it takes place at some undetermined, magical point, along the continuum of a human life cycle. Just because you’re on one or the other side of a vagina, does not make any difference to me.
Also, I’m curious Der Trihs, how do you propose we go about determining whether something has a mind or not? Even if I agreed with your argument, I wouldn’t take this train of thought too seriously, it’s a mighty, slippery slope. You are without mind when you go under general anesthesia, is it okay if someone takes you out then? I just don’t buy the argument. A mind does not make a human, nor is the only factor that constitutes something living. There are severely retarded or vegetative people on this earth, are they not really human or alive? What then? There are levels of value I put on certain types of life (e.g. cellular; plant life; animal; human; etc.), yes. But I maintain that we must give all forms of human life the benefit of the doubt. This argument shouldn’t be about what defines death (as in that which used to be alive, but is now dead), as opposed to the inverse. Also, where to switch over from cellular life to that of human life. There’s a big gray area there. Let’s err on the side of caution. For myself, I choose conception.
Yupp! That is a major reason why it needs to remain a legal practice, and give the mother’s all the assistance and help they need if they so choose to go through with it. And Sagan is one of my heros. But, after all, he was only human, and I value his arguments on the same plane as everyone else’s. In the end, we have to act on an informed opinion on what we feel is right, and hope it all comes out in the wash.
Brown Eyed Girl - I’m only on one end of the child support spectrum and I take care of my children with much pride and a fair amount of cash. I very much look down upon and debate against those who regard child support as some form of “Penis Tax”. As a father I was man enough to provide half the DNA so I have to be man enough to provide for half the needs, or more if possible. And if the check goes straight from my pocket to the local Cadillac dealer to pay for that new car? Great, I for one am glad to know that my children will be riding around in comfort and style while their mother buys them some Taco Bell.
Being willing to take on that responsibility comes from taking on the responsibility from the start. There are no accidental children. There is no “oops”. If my birth mother were raped and impregnated against her will then fine, suck me out with the nearest shop vac and good riddence. If, on the other hand, my birth mother (and bio-dad, it’s a shared responsibility) “just happened” to run out of condoms, then they should have “just happened” to run their happy little butts down to the drug store and pick some up. Either that or be prepaired for a suprise in about 280 days.
When it comes to contraception we are not speaking of underdeveloped nations, we are talking about the good ole US of A. As I recall Roe vs. Wade does not affect anyone but US citizens and those in the ward of this country. And yeah, there is a very effective form of contraception, widely available free of charge, even to dem fahreneers. One that is 100% effective. Abstinence can’t be beat for effectiveness. Alternative sex is less effective but more so than lack of all protection. If ya can’t wrap your junk, aim for the trunk.
As for me I still say life begins when death begins, whether in uterius or out. Abort the rapist’s spawn before that point and all is well. Heck, suck it out just for the hell of it if you want to, I don’t agree with it but if that’s what you choose. But as soon as it starts to die, on it’s own all proper and such, it has rights in my book and those rights need to be defended. It is at this point life begins, not conception and not birth.
Do we need these people that badly? Their own mothers don’t want them and trying to protect them would involve inflicting a fair amount of hardship on others, and we’re not (yet) in some desperate verge-of-extinction scenario, so where’s the cost/benefit analysis that says a ban is a good idea?
If you could take the whole pregnancy thing out of the picture, I would think it would make MORE sense to ‘terminate’ people who have shown themselves to be unwilling to live under the generally-accepted rules of society.
<tongue-in-cheek>
Murderers? terminate them. Violent rapists? terminate them. Arsonists? terminate them. Drug dealers? terminate them. Drunk drivers? terminate them. Clean those prisons right out and save the taxpayers $20K/yr per each to support and keep them. Start out fresh with new people who will hopefully behave better.
Despite the fact that men are overwhelmingly on the paying side as opposed to the raising side, I don’t see it as a “penis tax.” Each party is responsible for their share of support. Equipment has nothing to do with it. But good on ya for accepting your responsibility to your children. I don’t mean to belittle fathers’ contributions to their offspring in the least. Rather, I commend it.
Somehow, we’re still ignoring the fact contraceptives are not 100% efficacious, least of all, condoms. So, now what? What’s the solution for the Chotiis out there? It wasn’t an accident, but it certainly wasn’t planned. Her reasons for not wanting to continue an unplanned pregnancy may very well be the same reasons anyone else who wasn’t smart enough to at least take the minimum of precautions. But the resulting zygote is in the same boat as that of a rape or incest victim. So, now you’re turning some unplanned pregnancies into punitive sentences. But yet, you all keep coming back to the sanctity of life. That life clearly isn’t so in need of protection if you can justify reasons, any at all, that have nothing to do with the life itself to dispense with it. Your reasons aren’t any more right than someone else’s.
But, of course, we shouldn’t be concerned with all life, just that in the bodies of Americans with choices. This argument isn’t about Roe v. Wade and the legalities of sanctioned abortion. It’s about what constitutes life. If it begins at conception, than all life is equally worthy regardless of how it came to be.
Personally, I don’t believe that to be the case. There’s no socially acceptable justification for providing rights to living non-sentient cells while at the same time taking them away from a independently living, thinking human being.
Right, because human beings are biologically programmed to ignore all sexual cues unless they specifically plan to procreate. We’ve seen how effective abstinence education is; again, not 100%.
You can say that all you want, but invading another person’s body to defend specious, and often exclusive, rights is the pinnacle of intrusive, in my book.
Here’s the problem as I see it with the “Your selection of a point is entirely arbitrary” argument.
|-------------|-|-------------------|
a b c d
When a pro-choicer says they think there’s a point along a continuum of personhood at which a fetus counts as worthy of rights, whether it’s based on a general state of growth, or growth of the brain, or the like, it’s pointed out that such changes are gradual. Like my little diagram, a person such as yourself metaphorically points out points b and c on the development scale and says “Look; there’s really very little seperating b and c. How can you pick the right point exactly? Is it a case of “nearly, nearly, neeearly, there! This is the exact point at which a fetus has personhood?” How can you select such a definite point on a gradual, bit-by-bit increasing, incredmental scale?” And that’s a fair point.
However; while there’s a slight difference between b and c, and many other similarly close points on our continuum, there’ still a pretty damn big difference between a and c. And while it’s certainly silly to claim we know the “magical” point at which a fetus becomes a developmentally a person, it’s equally silly to suggest that the small differences between b and c mean there’s no difference between a, the fertilised egg, and c.
Now, while I can’t speak for other pro-choicers, I certainly accept the difficulty of pointing out the magical personhood point. So until we’re better able to hunt it down, I say; let’s err on the side of caution. Instead of picking out the exact point of personhood, let’s leave out some wiggle room. Instead of looking for the exact point of change, let’s go back a bit, let’s leave some space where we could be wrong, and let’s make the cut-off point in an area of the continuum we are more comfortable talking about. Like my spectrum of colour analogy earlier, if we’re trying to avoid accidentally picking green instead of blue, let’s go all the way back and pick red, orange, or yellow. Let’s avoid picking between b and c, and move back to the beginning of the red area on my little diagram (metaphorically).
Essentially, that’s what you’re doing; you don’t believe there’s the magical point (or so I would assume from your mockery of it), and so you’re going back to a more cautious point. The difference is that I and other pro-choicers would say it’s going too far - and that going back to conception, using the fertilised egg as the cutoff point, is as unreasonable a thing to do as going forward to birth. Merely because it’s difficult to draw the line doesn’t mean we should go back to the most easily drawn one of conception; to use the particular pro-life argument in this case, just as it may be an arbitrary decision as to where the cutoff point during development goes, likewise, a sperm and an egg and a fertilised egg are really not hugely different, development wise. It’s just semantically easy to draw a line there.
Like I said, I can’t speak for other pro-choicers, but I think you’ll find many are quite willing to accept moving back from the general area we think the “magical” point is in order to be more cautious.
All that does is devalue the term "human “being”. If a mindless fetus is a human being, then killing human beings isn’t always wrong. Arguing over definitions won’t make that fetus any more of a person.
Science. We should err on the side of caution, but a few months old fetus is waaaaaaay over in the “no mind” camp.
No, because my mind is still there, just turned off. An early fetus HAS no mind, and neither does someone brain dead.
As for slippery slopes, what makes you think that your argument isn’t one ? If your view because law and was taken seriously, we’d see an end to many organ transplants, and women being reduced to what amounts to breeding animals. We’d see women who miscarry investigated for murder, hospitals afraid to treat pregnant women lest she miscarry and they be accused of abortion ( something we’ve done to American funded Third World hospitals ). It would be a disaster; your view is always a disaster, wherever it’s implemented.
The mind is what matters. And I never said anything about life; I’d give a human-level AI equal civil rights to a human, just as I give none to the fetus.
Some are, some aren’t. That’s why someone who’s sufficiently brain damaged is declared brain dead.
But scientifically, there isn’t any doubt early in the pregnancy.
In other words, you choose the oppression and denigration of women, and the devaluation of humanity. You are saying that a woman is worth less than a clump of cells. Your definition is not one of caution, but of malice.
I hear you on your other points, and while I can still argue some of the finer points, I’ll let them stand for now (gotta get some work done).
However, I resent the statement above. You again assume that the fetus is nothing more than a lump of cells. In that light, why not just abort the fetus, willy-nilly for all it matters? I, on the other hand, take the opposite view and assume the fetus should have some amount of rights too. It becomes a matter of circumstance as to which right should outweigh the other. I have absolutely zero interest in oppression or denigration, and I think those words are a tad overblown in the context of my arguments. You’re in favor of nothing but the mother, here… I’m saying there’s another life in the mix, and to ignore that is devaluation of humanity.
I do respect your thoughts on nothing but pure science should inform the play here, but there are still certain mysteries surrounding the human condition where we don’t know what the score is yet. I don’t believe in anything metaphysical about the mind, or sentience in general, but we are more than just a lump of cells. If your argument is that the mind is the only thing that matters when placing rights, I’m cool with that. But I have little confidence in the ability of science being able to ever really tell us when a brain eventually does harbor a mind, in a black and white, definitive way.
And to Reverent Threshold’s scale, I can see basing the sentience of a mind on that scale, and saying “Well, the mind doesn’t even begin to develop until the baby has been born and is at least a year into development, so therefore, we’re good with aborting a pregnancy up to the 2nd trimester to be safe.” But what if we did find out, a baby is not really what we would consider a full human until it’s over a year old. Why not kill it in the third trimester? Or even after it’s born. After all, we’re not basing this off of feelings or ethics… but science.
Well, I quite agree with this. Seems to me that the logically correct choice (choosing some developmental goal - I say conciousness capability - and working in a margin for caution) is also the most convenient one, as not creating a moral dilemma for women seekin abortion (much less an enforcement nightmare).
The two issues are of course separate, but it seems odd to me that if the dividing line is truly more or less arbitrary, one would choose a point which we know will cause lots of suffering and social and personal problems.
