1-From what I understand a fetus in the 1st trimester is only the potential to life…IOW, it will only be life if I let it be.
2-Perhaps it is the most fundamental, but there is no law that says I must give life or propagate the species. I personally do not have an obligation to give anybody life. Just because I’m a woman does not mean I must become a mother. Does the most “fundamental right” extend other places? Because the next logical step from saying abortions should not be allowed is claiming that all women should have children anway. Afterall, they have all those unfertilized eggs just sitting there. Am I a bad person for ensuring that all my eggs stay unfertilized indefinitely? What if I had my tubes tied? What if my husband had a vasectomy? Is that different because nothing has been fertilized? IOW, how far do you take the logic behind the “life is the most fundamental right”?
3-Just so I know here you stand on this issue–do you believe that God imbues a fetus with a spirit from the very beginning? Is your stance tied up to God, or did you reach it through your own personal morals? This is germane to me because I feel if its the case, we are never going to reach any sort of middle ground—or even understanding. I don’t have a big Sky Daddy directing what I should and should not do.
You say that if you have a child, your figurative, non-biological “life” – that is, your hopes, dreams and aspirations – will be destroyed. However, if you have an abortion, then the fetus will lose both its biological life AND any chance at developing its figurative life – it’s hopes, dreams and aspirations. Clearly, the unborn stands to lose far more than you do, due to no fault of its own.
Moreover, even criminals deserve the right to a fair trial. It seems to me that in your argument, you implicitly reserve the right to be the judge, jury and executioner. In modern society, even the most craven criminal would have the right to have the legal system determine if his victim’s life would truly be ruined.
Additionally, it seems to me that you’re postulating a worst-case scenario, from which recovery is impossible. There are ways to mitigate such circumstances – by putting the child up for adoption, for example. And even if there weren’t, your example would only apply to situations wherein the mother’s aspirations are truly and definitely “destroyed,” as opposed to merely suffering a major setback. In other words, it would only justify abortion in certain specific and subjective circumstances, rather than in general.
Besides, consider the logical implications of your claim, “This individual will destroy my life, so I have the right to kill him.” Not long ago, I was in a similar situation. There was an individual who was causing tremendous trouble at my workplace, to the point that the company might not survive. I had built my dreams, hopes and aspirations on that company, and I came this close to losing virtually everything I owned. Would I have been justified in ending this person’s life, simply because he/she was “destroying” mine?
Do you have a medical cite for that? In many previous threads, beagledave, Bob Cos and I – along with other pro-lifers – provided cites to the contrary. In fact, if you want to see what the fetus looks like by the time the mother learns of her pregnancy, check out the high-res ultrasound images at Sound Wave Images.
If you’re pregnant, then you have already created a life. Ergo, this is not a matter of being obligated to create life.
I do… but as you may have noticed, I have not used that approach in arguing against abortion. Quite simply, I believe that abortion is unjustified on scientific grounds, not just religious ones. The people of the Atheist and Agnostic Pro-Life League agree with me on that point.
No. In fact, since I’ve nowhere claimed that in this thread, it clearly is not necessary. Its baby-ness would be a sufficient condition to condemn abortion, but it is not a necessary one.
But see, this doesn’t move me to concede. Do you know why?Because I don’t care. I care about my life and my “life”–I care about my husbands. That’s about it. I don’t care what this makes you think of me, it’s the truth. I have decided in this situation that my life is more important.
Because there isn’t already enough children in the system waiting for a home?
But see, there are countless examples where women who were either college educated or on their way to their degree got pregnant and how to drop out of school. Some were able to go back after raising their children, some were not. But that’s not a chance I’m willing to take because I * don’t want children*.
I don’t think your analogy holds up. You are not responsible for giving that person life, feeding it, sheltering it, educating it for 18 years. You weren’t expected to put your life on the back burner for that person. You weren’t expected to carry that person in your body for 9 months. Your actions weren’t directly responsible for this person’s life. I think someone being an asshole at work is a bit different from sacrificing eveything for 18 years for another being that you never wanted in the first place.
Well, perhaps I’m misunderstanding what you mean here. I’m reacting to statements like:
Your fundamental argument against abortion seems to be that the zygote/blastocyst/embryo/fetus/unborn baby is a “someone” throughout that spectrum, which seems to me to be tantamount to asserting its “baby-ness” (or more accurately its “person-hood”).
Of course there are other arguments that could be made against abortion. For example, someone could say that women have a duty to produce as many offspring as possible to serve the needs of the State, and that abortion is therefore treason against the social order. But I’m pretty sure that’s not the argument you’re making.
The argument boils down to when does human life begin?
Some say not until after the 1st trimester or until birth.
Some say at the moment of conception. (Which is what I believe.)
The first two are irreconcilable with the third. Since I believe that life begins at conception, any action taken to end that pregancy is killing an innocent life. No if, ands, or buts to it.
And a bit of a side note, the ‘My contraception failed’ argument is stupid. No contraceptive device is 100% effective, to the best of my knowledge. Read the Kama Sutra, there are all sorts of fun things to do that do not have the potential of ending in pregnancy. Better yet, if you are not mature enough to deal with the consequence, abstain from sexual relations.
So I should say to my husband, “You know much fun we have making love? It’s not only fun, but real, intimate, and expressive. You know how we do it for a variety of different reasons at a variety of different times but it’s always beautiful and it’s always about you and me and how much we love each other? Well, even though we’re taking every percaution we can, we should abstain. Sorry.”?
Somehow, I don’t think that’ll go over very well…
And I know that not all contraceptives are completely effective…that’s why I use 3.
Well first of all, that statement only presumes the humanity of the unborn, which is quite different from the question of whether it’s a “baby.” Even if we assume that the fetus can not be accurately called a baby, that would not mean that the fetus can be freely terminated.
Second, even if that statement did assume the fetus to be a baby, that would only imply that this particular argument is contingent on fetal babyhood. It would by no means imply that babyhood is the only grounds for condemning abortion.
Brutus, I disagree. There are pro-choicers who believe that a human life has been created after the process of fertilisation is completed, and are still pro-choice.
There are numerous stances on both sides of the argument, so it is unfair to categorise both sides in such a manner.There are pro-lifers who give no exceptions, there are some who concede abortions as a result of rape or incest, so there’s no monolithic pro-life answer either. It is not as simple as “is it life, or not?”
**
Just a side note, on your side note :
No contraceptive is 100% effective unfortunately. There you go, that’s two thing we agree on, human life IS created before the end of the first trimester and no contraceptives are 100% effective.
Now, do you understand that telling a happily married couple that they shouldn’t have sex a certain way because you disagree with the manner in which they deal with the consequences, is probably not going to get the results you desire ? Just imagine for a second, that you had no problem with abortion, and had it as your back-up plan if your other methods of birth control didn’t work. Now imagine that somebody told you that your back-up plan was immature, and you should instead not have certain types of sex. Do you honestly think you’d suddenly say “Oh damn, you’re right. Only headjobs and anal sex from now on hubby !” Of course not.
If you want to get people to see your point of view (and perhaps persuade them to your ‘side’) I would refrain from appearing as though you are judging them from a high moral position, deciding which actions are mature and which ones aren’t, and hence what each married couple should be doing in their bed.
There are many reasons for being pro-choice, just as there are many reasons for being pro-life, so setting up an “is it life vs. it isn’t life” argument and solving it, isn’t going to solve the abortion debate.
It seems to me that “I don’t care” is a rather poor moral argumen to use.
Quite the contrary. There is a huge list of couples waiting to adopt – which is why many of them choose to adopt children outside the USA.
As I said, the consequences of carrying to term can sometimes be difficult – even greatly difficult. That still doesn’t justify terminating someone’s life.
QUOTE]**
I don’t think your analogy holds up. You are not responsible for giving that person life, feeding it, sheltering it, educating it for 18 years. You weren’t expected to put your life on the back burner for that person. **
[/QUOTE]
Granted… but your statement only describes the manner in which the baby would (ahem) “destroy” your life. The co-worker that I mentioned would have destroyed my life as well, albeit in a different fashion. In fact, I was arguably in a more precarious situation, since I was literally in danger of losing everything I owned.
The baby and the co-worker can both “destroy” someone’s dreams, hopes and aspirations. The only difference lies in the manner in which this so-called “destruction” can occur.
If one believes that life begins at conception, then doesn’t it follow that that anything done to end that life is murder? Call it ‘early termination’, ‘abortion’, whatever. It is the taking of a human beings life.
Now, I believe that there are situations in which it is permissable to take anothers life. Self-defence, in all of its many forms, is one. Execution of criminals is another.
But killing infants? Nope. I cannot concieve of a situation in which it is permissable to end the life of a infant.
Is your reasoning that the happiness of a given person trumps the infants life?
Because where does it end, then? Gee whiz, my 3-year old is a real pain in the ass. I better get a post-natal abortian. It is my choice, after all!
I really don’t see any possiblity for compromise on abortion. Much like Israel/Palestine, dogs/cats, and so many other issues, I think this one will be around until something ‘big’ happens, and one side or the other switches to other view point.
Bullsh- er, poop. There are 278 kids awaiting adoption in Missouri alone. 48 in Massachusetts, even 23 in the tiny state of Conneticutt. Just point your mouse cursor here:
Yes, but she is making the choice to do so. She could give up her children because they are not physically dependent on her to live. I would have no problem with outlawing abortion if there were some alternative to allow the woman to choose to use her own body without killing the fetus – some sort of equivalent to adoption.
I really don’t recall any ban on adoption that would compare to the ban on abortion that you are positing.
**
Can you go back to my post and find where I believe universal abortion is imperative for individual freedom to exist? This is simply ludicrous.
Incidentally, I argue that there is no such thing as ‘more free’. Either you are free, or you are not. If you do not have control over your body, then you are not free.
**
I make no such assumption. I simply said that both lives are dependent on one body and that both cannot equally have control over the same body. The woman can live without the fetus, hence it is her body to which I referred.
**
Again, false. Where did I say this? No, I said that the woman’s right to her own body trumps the right of the fetus to use said body. If the woman makes the choice to do so, more power to her. She should not be forced to give up control of her own body, hence why abortion should be legal.
**
I never said anything about God-given rights, and therefore I don’t know how you assume that I believe that they should be taken away. I am positing that a) the mother and the fetus cannot, by definition, have equal rights and that b) I feel it is more important for the woman, who is an established person and is known to be sentient, to have rights rather than a fetus whose personhood and sentience are in dispute.
**
Can you please tell me where on Earth you got this one from? Please, point out where I said anything that even slightly implied this. Such an assumption would be irrational and furthermore it would make my arguments completely insipid. Why would I care about my stance on abortion and if society upholds its legality if my actions, and the actions of others, had no consequences?
**
I never said this either. I said that when a mother and fetus are in a situation where both cannot have equal rights that I consider the woman’s right to control her body and to have personal freedoms more important than for a fetus or embryo to have rights to her body.
**
**
Just to be snarky here, why should rape or incest matter? Surely, the baby had no say in how it was created. Children born of rape or incest don’t have lesser rights as persons – if fetuses are persons, why should they have lesser rights than these children? Should it be allowable to kill infants after birth because of rape or incest?
**
Again, why should this matter? Is it the baby’s fault? Why does the baby have lesser rights based on these circumstances? Why do the baby’s rights trump the woman’s right to her body, but not her right to live?
Your compassion and sensitivity in understanding the real motivations behind abortions is overwhelming. :rolleyes:
**
This is a ridiculous argument. The point of abortions is not simply to exercise the right over one’s body – that is the point of defending abortion legality.
**
**
They are perfectly valid – for you. However, what is legal is not limited to what is justifiable behavior in your perspective. I do not believe things should be illegal just because you think that they are bad decisions.
What on earth have you been going on about this whole time, then? I said that I am personally (as far as my body goes) against abortion! You seem to have the same point of view, yet you persist in arguing many pro-life points of view?
That’s fine. You can feel as freely as you want that God is sending women who have abortions – as well as atheists, drug users, liberals, vegetarians, Jews, Muslims, Mormons, Catholics, or whomever you wish – straight to hell. If you’ll read the topic of the discussion, though, it’s about outlawing abortion. I don’t understand why you would argue repeatedly about how abortion is bad, yet expect us to understand that you are, in fact, pro-choice, when under such a topic.
**
No. In order to preserve the rights of individuals, the government not only cannot infringe upon these rights but must not allow others to do so either. A police force and judicial system is, thus, needed. Laws that protect the individual’s right to life (against murder), liberty (against false arrest, kidnapping, protecting abortion, etc.) and property (theft, vandalism) are acceptable. IMHO, laws that regulate morality (sodomy laws, for example) are not acceptable because of the religious grounds and thus the violation of the 1st Amendment. YMMV.
This is an incorrect analogy, first of all. We do not punish murderes because they believe that killing is OK. Believing that murder is acceptable is not a crime. We have the freedom to believe that if we wish. The person is punished because there are laws against murder. IMHO, murder is illegal because it violates the rights of others. You have the right to liberty, but your liberty ends where it would begin to infringe upon the rights of others. Murder obviously qualifies here.
What I don’t understand is if a) laws are based on morality and b) abortion is immoral then why are you pro-choice? Wouldn’t you be pro-life, by definition?
The reason for my confusion is that you are giving a lot of pro-life reasons to outlaw abortion, but yet not explaining your political position – and your position on legality is the topic of this thread. Please explain what you want in those terms and we can get past individual morality and back into the thread’s original topic.
Well, duh. It takes time to match prospective parents up with there adoptees. Since it DOES take time, there will always be children who are waiting to be adopted. That is hardly a compelling argument for giving up on adoption in general.
There are kids who are waiting to be adopted, but there are also couples who are waiting to adopt kids. Sometimes, this is due to bureaucracy, and sometimes it is due to the costs involved in adoption. There is even a huge list of couples who want to adopt disabled and other special needs kids. This suggests that we need to streamline the adoption process, rather than give up on adoption as an alternative.
I’m not sure it’s proper to argue that the loss of potential hopes, dreams and aspirations for a fetus is a “loss” in any real sense of the word. Certainly, based on what we know of fetal development and of newborn development, it can’t be said to have any in the most basic sense of the word, at least at that time. More importantly, it doesn’t even know that it will have them at some point in the future. It doesn’t even know it has biological life. Is it possible to lose something you don’t even have, or don’t even know you have?
Errr . . . this is a topic of some controversy. Suffice to say that many couples adopt outside the USA because: 1) It’s faster, 2) They can get an infant more easily, and 3) They can get a white infant more easily. Statistics suggest that only 1% of white adoptive mothers adopt black children, and that only 5% of white women adopt children of other nonwhite races. It’s a sad fact, but it’s a fact. Middle-class white couples aren’t lining up to adopt black babies born to drug addicts, or even to adopt toddlers and preteens of any color. They want white infants.
Murder is, AFAIK, a legal term (i.e, unlawful killing) and therefore doesn’t apply unless the killing is illegal. Currently, in the USA, abortion is legal, therefore the correct term would be “killing” and not “murdering”.
So yes, because I consider the fetus a human life, I do also consider abortion as the killing of that human life. I hope that clarifies my stance for you. Like I said, there are many different views in the pro-choice (and pro-life) groups. It ISN’T a simple case of living vs. not living.
As regards the side note, no, it is not my reasoning that the happiness of one person trumps an infant’s right to life. That is not what I said. I was merely trying to illustrate why that argument would probably not win anybody in that situation, over to your side. If it isn’t your intention to win people over to your side, how about we just let it drop, since you’re arguing a point I didn’t make.
BTW, my baby (if I had one and gave it up for adoption) would be “of color” and would like a minority. It might make a difference, as per pld’s stats.
I guess in my moral structure, I put “number one” first. I feel that I’m responsible–I’m not sleeping around with strangers, I take careful percautions when it comes to pregnancy, I discuss the various possibilities with my husband on a regular basis. (After all, our life has gone through some pretty radical changes this past year, and our needs change on a regular basis. We also “update” our options.) My morals come down to acting responsibly and taking care of myself. Right now I’m doing the first to the best of my ability, and if that fails, I will explore whatever options necessary to take care of the second.