Ok, I think I have a very rational reason why I am pro-life. Not including any unforeseen circumstances which might lead to a miscarriage, once an egg is fertilized the process of the development of a new human life has begun. I don’t know enough about fetal development to argue when ‘life’ itself might truly begin, but it’s very clear to me that once fertilized the process has been irrevocably set in motion. At any point, to interrupt that process is tantamount to the taking of a human life, it’s simply circumventing the process by which that life is achieved.
I’m afraid I’m as a loss for a clever analogy to compare this viewpoint to, so I hope that my writing was clear enough to pass along my original meaning.
*I do not include the use of preventative birth control as ‘circumventing the process by which that life is achieved’ my argument is based on the assumption that the egg is fertilized, and implanted in the uterine wall.
I concede the necessity of abortion in cases where it is clear that either the mother, or child, or both would die as a result of continuing the pregnancy.*
Apart from the last sentence, how does this affect one’s moral obligations? Why is it better to let people have different moral obligations?
Well, provided it was consensual.
No there can’t. Why is incest wrong? Because it causes harm. If it didn’t cause harm at one point in time, then it wasn’t wrong then. If it did, it was.
Only due to a lack of abstract thinking and a lack of knowledge. We are not as different as you think, IWLN, and even if we were, what does that have to do with our importance? Why is a human life, in itself, more important than another life, in itself, as you seem to think?
Nope. I’d happily sacrifice my life for a wanted fetus too, just not an unwanted one. There is nothing special about the passage through the birth canal. In the uterus or outside it, the only things that matter are pain and pleasure.
No, that’s not what I’m saying. I’m saying that if the baby dies, it’s over for the baby. There’s nothing more. Void. Neutral. Killing someone for whom no-one grieves is a neutral act.
Only because this is one area where you can’t do a laboratory experiment. A bunch of women saying they regret their abortions is not evidence. It just isn’t.
Tell me, what would your reaction be if a mother did tell you “I wish I’d had the abortion”? What would a mother expect your reaction to be? No matter how much “women talk”, there are immensely strong social taboos regarding this. A mother not loving her child is seen as such a horrible thing, that I’m not surprised you’ve never heard about it. That doesn’t mean it doesn’t happen.
But you wouldn’t know it. People opposing abortion have told me “What if your mother had had an abortion, you wouldn’t have had a little brother, don’t you love him?”. Of course I do. But if he’d been terminated, I wouldn’t have known him. Nothing to miss. No pain.
No, that’s a perfectly neutral action. If it causes you pain, then don’t do it or deal with it.
You’re missing me. Non-existence is the default assumption for everything. If we didn’t see the sun, we would assume it didn’t exist. If we weren’t humans or didn’t ever see humans, we would assume humans didn’t exist. Only when contrary evidence were introduced would we change our minds. It’s the same thing with this “value” of which you speak. If there’s no evidence of it, we assume it doesn’t exist.
How are you going to regulate that? You can’t make people care. Moral obligations are completely tied into what makes life happy, free of pain, comfortable for our society as a whole, which also benefits you and I. Oddly, I think it’s our moral obligation to meet the moral obligation that is neglected by other people. You can’t compell moral obligation and it is counter-productive to keep score.
It doesn’t necessarily appear that it caused harm and they didn’t consider it wrong, so okay, you’re right. My example didn’t prove anything.
I don’t think we’re radically different than other life. I’m quite comfortable with the concept that I am an animal too. As far as our importance, I think because of our knowledge and abstract thought, it puts more responsibility on us to value and protect non-human life. It’s our shame that we use our relatively recent developement of thought and reason to exploit other animals. Those beliefs only go to a certain point though. If you and the horse are drowning, you get pulled out first, even if I know the horse and you’re a stranger. Humans are still my favorites. Human life counts for more because of our ability for abstract thought and reason. We feel emotional/mental pain at the loss of another human. I’m not saying some animals don’t, but probably not to the same degree. I’m biased.
Okay. The value of the baby’s life is based solely on the desire for the baby?
I grieve. I know you believe I have no right to, but I do.
So the fact that thousands feel this way is unimportant? Okay.
A mother not loving her child is not that unusual of an occurence. We hear about it everyday in some form of abuse or another. There is unfortunately no guarantee that a “wanted” child will have a good life either. If someone told me she wished she would have had an abortion, I would offer to help her, to lighter her load. I’m not a judgmental person and having not lived that person’s life, have no way of really understanding. At least there is some help, some relief for the mom who regrets having her child. There’s no help for the woman who regrets her abortion.
If my son had never been conceived, I wouldn’t know it. Had I aborted him, I would always wonder who he would have been.
Why would I have the moral right to take away his rights?
I do understand now, what you’re saying about non-existence being the default assumption. Takes me awhile sometimes. I still don’t get how this applies to abortion. I can equate it to, say children I never conceived, people I never met, etc. They have no value to me. But even if I could tell myself that my pregnancy was currently just some cells and I got an abortion; there is no way to convince myself that it wasn’t my child in the early stages of development. The other things that are non-existent by default, are not non-existent because I caused them to be.
Because there is simply no way to pinpoint the exact time that human “life” begins after conception. Thus, one can’t be sure if abortion is killing a human being, and providence demands that we give the unknown entity the benefit of the doubt.
Since fewer people will probably grieve the horse, that’s morally right.
Yes. But this doesn’t give human life some intrinsic value. It just means that it is likely that the right moral choice is to save a human instead of a nonhuman. It still has to be weighed on the circumstances.
No. It’s based on how much grief will be felt for it.
It’s not about rights. It’s just that you not grieving is a better solution than the alternative.
No, but there’s no way we can examine it.
You’ll have to realize that no-one will expect this reaction from you, that it’s a rare reaction, and that the reaction still might not help a woman overcome the social taboos. “I wish my kid were dead” is one of the most stigmatizing thoughts a parent, especially a mother, can have in our society.
Are you trying to see if I’m paying attention? I’m arguing that these moral obligations, various one’s that I previously listed do exist, are right, but not morally required and then I gave you reasons why they can’t or shouldn’t be, including why they can’t practically be regulated. You aren’t going to “cut and paste” abortion into this argument and thank me for proving your argument, are you? I’m not sure where this is going.
At this point I’ll cherish any agreement.
Agreed.
Still a tough concept for me. No value other than what’s placed on it by other humans.
You meant to say me grieving is a better solution…right? The “not” shouldn’t be in there?
Okay.
Well she actually doesn’t really wish he was dead, but that he hadn’t been born, never existed, was never conceived. Even not believing in abortion, I can see a difference in that thought. I do agree though, many would be shocked and judgmental, rather than hearing a cry for help. I even agree that in that instance, it’s probably sadder than abortion. I just “emotionally” don’t believe it’s that common to even think that. I don’t get points for emotional belief though.
I have a comment, not a real argument; because I haven’t researched it and I know for you ungrieved means a neutral event. I heard recently that there are 6,000,000 babies born in the U.S. each year. There are over 1,250,000 abortions done each year. Birth control is reliable I think about 97% of the time. That means after subtracting another 1% for rape, incest and the mother’s health and even ignoring that part of the 3% of failed birth control falls into the live birth category; there really should only be 50,000 abortions per year. Give or take a few thousand. My numbers I’m sure are off, but no matter how you figure it, close to a million abortions are done due to carelessness, indifference, laziness, etc. I will never be okay with abortion, but it would be easier to swallow if it weren’t so abused. I wouldn’t even think it was right to allow my dog to keep getting pregnant and then aborting it. If it weren’t legal, would people be more responsible? You don’t need to respond, it’s just part of the reason I’m so resistant to the whole concept.
I am a prolifer with a nonreligious argument. It is based on human rights.
A zygote is not an embryo is not a baby. However, over time, there is a chance that the zygote will mature into an embryo, then into a baby. Once the baby matures, he will become a mature adult with human rights.
Denying the zygote/embryo/baby the opportunity to become an adult with all the rights is wrong. Killing a born baby is wrong because it has a chance at becoming an adult with rights, including the right to life. Killing an embryo is wrong because it has a chance to become a baby. Killing a zygote is wrong because it has a chance to become an embryo.
No. You do, however, have a tendency to pull regulation and laws into any discussion. We’re discussing moral rights and wrongs. You’ve already said that you don’t want abortion criminalized, so we’re on the same team there.
By other creatures, including nonhumans. That’s just rarely relevant in an abortion discussion. But what other values are there?
No, the “not” should actually be in there. The point is that you learning not to grieve is a better solution. Wow, that sounded cold.
Um, correct me if I’m wrong. Didn’t all the pro-choice posters start out as zygotes? Please tell me the exact day you were safe after conception from being aborted.
My wife and I are trying to have a baby. Since I have the best hopes for a kid, we’re having fun. But, what if? I’ve gone so far as looking into adopting out of country. I want to raise a child. I’m doing so with my nephews, but it just isn’t the same. I want a son/daughter that we can raise if we can’t get one going. Hell, we will probably adopt just to give a kid from a 3rd world country the opportunities of living in the USA, even if we can get pregnant.
As a side note to legitimize, my older brother was born with both Spina Bifida and Encephalitis. He was under “shunting” and was never given a chance to make it past a mental capacity of a 6 year old. My mom was given the option of aborting right before he was born via Ceasairin (sp?), and chose to give him a chance. Doctors don’t always know the best things He gave smiles to us when he saw us. He loved the play we gave him. You could see it in his eyes. We lost him at age 2. This was almost 30 years ago. That little zygote was a wonderment.
What the hell is the point? Sometimes an insignificant person is allowed to live.
I’m not getting into a religious rant since the OP asked for it not to be done. Just giving a real-life scenario about the OP. (Getting to the point of rambling) I’ll leave it at this and see what happens.
I don’t understand the question. Legally, you mean? In that case it was in the middle of March 1977 for me, if I remember correctly. I’m a bit too tired to look up the fluctuations in Swedish abortion laws.
Yes, your’re right, I don’t want abortion criminalized. I think the mother’s are it’s moral victims too and don’t really see the point. My “tendency” to pull regulation or some sort of control into the discussion has to do with my desire to fix problems, not merely define them.
Suppose my mother didn’t want me. From the moment I was conceived, she was horrified and never could reconcile herself to even being a mother. Abortion wasn’t legal, so she gave birth to me. We won’t even give this a happy slant. Living was rough, not enough money, no love; but I survived. I grew up and starting helping and doing a significant amount of good. Okay, my point here isn’t the typical “what if you aborted the person who would have found the cure for cancer soonest”(or Jesus ;)), so you can ignore that side of it. What I’m asking is, at what point did I start to have value? At what point does it cease to matter whether your mother wanted you or not? Does someone else have to value me before I truly have value. Let’s give both scenarios. I grew up and I haven’t done much, but hey I’m having a good time and I value myself. Do I have to contribute something significant or it remains true that I should never have been born?
Being able to grieve makes me more. I don’t try to avoid it or discount it. Feeling sadness over loss is a vital part of our human-ness. It is the only real deterrent to crime and moral decay. I’m not sure I really realized it until just now, but that is the part of abortion that bothers me the most. It scares me and makes me sad. We’ve lost the ability to grieve and so events like terminating a life have become neutral. It is cold.
To be frank, you don’t. Neither do I. Nor anyone else. That’s not the way I look at this. I look at each action and see the amount of pain and pleasure caused by the action. Those are values that really exist.
When someone else cares enough, for a good reason.
Yep, although I’d never say anyone “truly has value”.
It’s not about contributing. It’s not about the value of a human. It’s about the amount of pleasure or pain caused by an action. If killing you produces no pleasure or pain for anyone, it’s a neutral action. The same goes for killing me or anyone else.
But they have to be considered collectively in some way, assessed. If I caused nation-wide pleasure yesterday(I like to think big), but today I didn’t leave my house, I still believe I have value. I have a track-record for causing pleasure and not pain, so my potential for future contribution is excellent. And not just considering potential either. I have a heart, I care, I contribute. I have the ability and the willingness to cause pleasure. Even if right at that moment I’m not acting on it, how can that not be worth something. Take Mr. Evilsharp(;)). He never causes pleasure, only pain. He and I are the same, when no action is taking place?
Why? I could still be causing pleasure, even though no one cares about me.
Okay, dammit, I’m pulling the God card!! Or not. Sigh. Okay, I kind of brought this up before and you told me it would be better if I didn’t feel pain. Abortion causes a lot of pain for the people who believe so strongly against it. So one abortion causes let’s say hundreds of us to feel pain. This isn’t about a woman’s rights any more, it’s about the most amount of pain. Not a “possible” pain of having an unwanted child, but a pain that is guaranteed to happen, if she aborts. By your way of measuring actions, this woman should suck it up and possibly feel pain, to save hundreds from feeling pain. Right?
Human rights are based on the history of western thought since Aristotle and his great chain of being. Later philosophers decided that at least one of the rungs on the chain should be wider, including more of the population, so that all adults are the same. If we are the same, then we should all have rights. The Declaration of Independence (of the USA) states “all Men are created equal, … they are endowed … with certain unalienable Rights”. So we see that the human rights idea is nothing new and has been a part of society for a long time. Someone may point out that my second elipsis contains the phrase “by their Creator”. But this needs not to be a religous argument because Creator could ge interpreted as Evolution.
I agree. I would love for no one to have any more abortions (except in certain circumstances), but in this world I don’t feel we can ban them. We know what happened when abortion was illegal - it happened anyway, and often the mother died as well as the child/fetus/whatever. In good conscience I can’t decide that those women’s lives - women who might be raising other children, or doing good in society - don’t have value.
I do think that logically speaking life begins at conception - the cells are alive, they’re multiplying, if they all ceased to function that would accurately be described as cell “death,” and it’s not likely they’ll turn into a rabbit. Ergo, alive and human in genetic makeup, from moment one.
However, I don’t think aborting a one-day pregnancy is the same as aborting a four-month pregnancy. The cells aren’t aware, don’t respond to stimulus, there are no recognizable body parts. On the other hand, we do indeed have evidence that a nine-week fetus responds to pain and stimuli (and, some say, fear). I won’t go into unnecessary graphic detail - you can find it all in the Court’s opinion on so-called “partial-birth” abortion - but even at that early stage of pregnancy there are different methods of abortion. The next sentences aren’t graphic, but might be sensitive for some; highlight to read:
Some procedures begin to remove the fetus without first terminating its life - obviously, it dies in the process. The “chemical” abortion methods essentially poison the fetus. In neither process is death quick. There has been testimony, from pro-choice abortion practitioners as well as former practitioners and nurses who have converted to the pro-life side, that fetuses (feti?) react to the pain and fear during these procedures and will in fact sometimes struggle. Since this testimony was delivered in court documents by current practitioners of these methods, and not by abortion opponents, I believe it.
I have a real moral problem with killing a human creature that knows it’s being hurt. I wouldn’t torture a newborn infant, and I don’t see this as much different. That said, I acknowledge that in cases such as rape, incest, risk to the mother’s health or life, etc., termination might be acceptable.
In all honesty, I think your viewpoint on abortion has something to do with how much you sentimentalize babies - baby humans, baby anythings. If you think of an unborn child as a cute fuzzy-haired baby, you’re likely to see an unborn child that way at two months as well as nine. If you think of an unborn child in terms of a medical issue, something in the body, a problem, a choice, a partially-developed bundle of cells, etc., you’re not going to see the issue in the same light. Me, I basically sentimentalize baby fish, so . . .
Well, then they care by proxy. I admit that was badly written by me.
Not exactly. For starters, you simply do not feel pain from every abortion. You do not even find out about every abortion unless you scour the medical archives of the world daily, and if you do that… well, sucks to be you. If there are 35000 abortions instead of 40000 (numbers just pulled from thin air), that doesn’t really matter to you. There’s just no way a human mind can quantify the difference.
Besides, this is where I get into the “better solution” part. It’s a better solution that you learn not to grieve the little parasite than to force all those women to have unwanted children.
PianoWow, argument from age is still a fallacy. To spell it out: Aristotle thinking something doesn’t make it so. The American Declaration of Independence saying something doesn’t make it so. That the concept of human rights has existed for a long time doesn’t make human rights real.
It might be better to answer the question logically, with a few facts to back you up. Perhaps attack the opinion rather than Priceguy. You uh…kinda make pro-lifer’s look bad, when you wave guns around. We’ve pretty much debated at length on what point “unborn” human life has value. Everyone doesn’t agree on this, which doesn’t by default make your opinion or mine carry more weight than Priceguy’s. Saying it, just doesn’t make it so.
Humans are still my favorites. Human life counts for more because of our ability for abstract thought and reason. We feel emotional/mental pain at the loss of another human. I’m not saying some animals don’t, but probably not to the same degree. I’m biased.
